| by Thomas Huber When, in December 1995, Edgar Bronfman, President of the World Jewish Congress, met with Alfonse M. D'Amato, then senator from New York and chairman of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, for a dinner to discuss the matter of dormant bank accounts in Switzerland relating to the Holocaust-era, probably very few people -- if anybody at all -- would have foreseen a development, which would engulf almost every European country and even many outside Europe in the years to follow. A re-evaluation of the (economic) history of the 1930s and 1940s began. Barely four months after this dinner, and after a young historian incidentally discovered a single file in the National Archives proving that Swiss Banks had more dormant or heirless assets in their vaults than they previously admitted, D'Amato held the first in a series of hearings on the Swiss-Gold issue. Both Germany and Austria have now signed historic agreements regarding the compensation of former forced and slave labourers as well as in the area of restitution of "Aryanised" property. Germany will pay out U.S.$ five billion and Austria 700 million. More than fifty years after the end of the Second World War, the issue of compensating victims of Nazi persecution was again on the agenda of world politics, although many had thought, and some perhaps secretly hoped, that this chapter was finally closed, that the so-called Schlu[beta]strich ("final stroke") had already been drawn a long time ago. When trying to ascertain the main causes that led to this development in the 1990s, five factors emerged in the course of my research that contributed to the "reopening" of this incomplete chapter in history. I. Causes 1. Generational Factor: The transition to a positive attitude towards compensation payments goes hand in hand with a changed attitude of mind. Nowadays we see a growing interest and willingness amongst the first, second, and third generation of both perpetrators and victims to deal with the Holocaust. What has not been talked about for decades is now ripe for discussion. Following the Second World War, Holocaust survivors were not ready and not in the position to talk about their fate. They consciously and unconsciously avoided their past; besides this, they were too busy building up new lives, for the most part in Israel or the USA. What is more: revelations about the concentration camps did not correspond with the real horror, and in the USA of the 1950s one was more worried about the misery of anticommunist refugees than about Holocaust survivors. (1) Even the Jewish establishment in the USA "forgot" about the Holocaust, since West Germany was a crucial ally in the confrontation with the Soviet Union. To put the past in the spotlight did not serve any purpose; it complicated things. (2) Both the Eichmann trial (1961-62), which caused a public debate about the "Final Solution" in Israel, and the "Auschwitz trials" in Germany (1963-65), opened up the taboo. Personal stories by Holocaust survivors (Elie Wiesel, Primo Levi, Jean Amery) in the 1960s and 1970s represent the first attempts to bring the Holocaust closer to a wider public. But both the perpetrators and victims in general remained silent about the past. Only a genuine development within Jewish circles in the USA opened the debate. The children of the wartime generation tried to analyse the Nazi regime and their parents' deeds, but attempts to deal more intensively and profoundly with history were fruitless at first. Only in the past twenty years did an open debate take place. It is also this second generation among the victims that demands justice for their parents. Since they are well represented in various Jewish organisations and at government level in the USA, they are able to put forward their requests. In the 1990s the third generation, the grandchildren of the perpetrators and victims, approached the Holocaust and the Second World War in a completely different way. They became interested "because they realize that terrible things have happened, about which they have known little, and since young people tend to be idealistic, the normal reaction to that is that we must all make sure that this will never happen again." (3) To historian Hans Mommsen this phenomenon -- that a new generation is interested in the Holocaust -- is a consequence of the "intergenerational change". In his opinion this generation wants to inform itself, after their parents' generation more or less had repressed it: "The young generation in Germany takes Auschwitz as a starting point for its political orientation, [...] in the sense of a challenge to support human rights and for the repression of violence and terror. They are heavily interested, without having a feeling of guilt like the previous generation." (4) Austrian historian Florian Freund calls it "the angry young generation, that does not show much consideration for sensitivities, not for sensitivities in Austria either." (5) This generational change also holds true for managers in the private sector. Today's CEOs are educated and personally much freer from worries about the past, hence ready to confront it and to learn about their companies' history during the Nazi period. (6) Historian Gotz Aly thinks that the inability of the later-born generations to comprehend the events makes these twelve years [1933-1945] remain in the present. (7) The active involvement of the survivors means that the current debate is the last one before the Holocaust becomes a truly historic event, before nobody lives anymore who consciously and actively lived under the Nazi regime. The phenomenon described above has led some authors to suggest that there is a strengthened "intergenerational ethics". This ethics confronts us with crimes whose historical heirs we are without having caused them. (8) 2. Historico-cultural Factor: A growing interest in history is manifest today. The Holocaust has already entered into the wider public consciousness and via the media into the popular culture. A key event was the television mini-series "Holocaust" in 1978, watched by 120 million Americans on NBC. However, the most striking example is the huge success of Steven Spielberg's film Schindler's List, awarded seven Academy Awards in 1994. When it premiered on NBC in February 1997, more than sixty-five million US-citizens watched it, more than previously in movie theatres. Spielberg's "Survivors of the Shoah Visual History Foundation" also received an Oscar for best documentary film ("The Last Days") in 1999. Many criticize this "commercialisation" of the Holocaust and of history. These critics argue that financial interests, and not the study of historical events, are at the forefront; to this development they mockingly refer to as "Shoah Business". Norman Finkelstein even goes so far as to state that Jewish organisations are using the Holocaust to put through their interests. (9) The so-called "Americanisation of the Holocaust" can more aptly be described as popularisation, which can have positive as well as negative consequences. Especially in the USA the Holocaust has entered the political arena. (10) Mommsen thinks that Americans have forged a link by integrating the Holocaust into the national Selbstverstandnis ("self-understanding"). (11) One reason for this lies in the fact that after the end of the Cold War anticommunism disappeared as a model of identification, and Antifascism/-nazism was increasingly used for Identitatsbildung ("identity-building"). The comparison between "good America" and "evil Nazi Germany" fosters patriotism, and was all the more welcomed as the USA emerged victorious from World War Two. Consequently, the role of the Holocaust in remembering World War Two became more significant. The experience of Holocaust survivors became a "national experience" in the USA; the Holocaust became part of American history. This development was paralleled by "a change in the attitude toward victimhood from a status all but universally shunned and despised to one often eagerly embraced." (12) The USA is especially relevant to us, because American-Jewish organisations were the driving force behind the campaign for compensation in the early stage (1995-97), while the US government, under the guidance of Stuart Eizenstat, took the lead beginning in 1997. In the German-speaking countries the controversies surrounding the exhibit Vernichtungskrieg -- Verbrechen der Wehrmacht ("War of extermination -- Crimes of the Wehrmacht"), and Daniel Jonah Goldhagen's book Hitler's willing executioners -- Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust shaped the public debate. Goldhagen, whose theses are not supported by most renowned historians, traces the Holocaust to a particularly virulent form of anti-Semitism in Germany and Austria, which led to the extermination of Jews. His thesis contradicts what the younger generation had learned about the Holocaust, and stands in sharp contrast to the views of most historians. Nonetheless, or perhaps just because of this, the Goldhagen-controversy is a reference to how much the Nazi past still is on our mind today. The historical interest in the Holocaust also changed our view of the history of the Third Reich: the Holocaust now plays a central role. According to historian Martin Dean, "[e]ven historians are now talking of the Holocaust as the main paradigm of the World War Two-period, more so than the actual war itself." (13) 3. (World-)Political Factor: The issue of compensation payments cannot be fully understood without the context of the Cold War. Beginning in 1948 ("Truman Doctrine") the containment of communism became top priority, and the much-needed denazification was left behind. This world-political turn of events led to an Erinnerungsloch ("gap in one's memory") regarding the crimes of World War Two across Western Europe. (14) Extensive compensation payments by West Germany into communist Eastern Europe would not have gained acceptance in the USA, even if Bonn had wanted to do so, which was not the case. (15) Regarding the neutral countries, the politicians' attention concentrated first and foremost on an impending communist coup and on an attack on Western Europe; therefore one endeavoured to integrate the neutrals into the western world. (16) The Cold War also prevented investigating other issues, such as the private sector's role in Nazi Germany. It was a standstill regarding morality. Ethical questions were pushed aside in the ideological battle between East and West. With the fall of the Berlin Wall a new era began: "The end of the Cold War has caused more attention on the relationship between the government and its own people, and less on the relationship between states. The shift has gone from a Cold War situation, to one where people are more aware of the role of governments and freedoms being abused by particular governments." (17) With the end of the East-West confrontation issues like restitution, forced labour, dormant bank accounts, etc. became a possible topic of discussion and ready to be negotiated." (18) The end of the Cold War also brought the opening of archives in the former Communist countries of Eastern Europe. The opening of these archives brought with it a new assessment, a re-evaluation of historical events, which is quite normal for events dating back thirty to sixty years. After various waiting periods, state and private archives were increasingly opened up, but not all of them in their entirety. Thereby new documents became publicly accessible for the first time. A potential avalanche of information was created! Historians unanimously agree that the availability of new sources, new archival material, has not fundamentally challenged the historiography of the Holocaust: "However, the availability of new sources, above all in the communist countries, has given a younger generation of scholars the opportunity to raise a series of previously unanswered questions regarding the expropriation of `Jewish property'. Careful research can tell us more about how the Holocaust was conducted and what role Jewish property had." (19) The distribution of property can provide us with information not only about what the victims owned, but also about who was murdered. The essential part of the opening of archives therefore lies in the fact that historical research has been gathering momentum. (20) To sum up, it can be argued that the new world-political constellation enabled increasing research, thereby helping to resolve questions of, among other issues, restitution and dormant bank accounts. 4. "Timely" Factor: Several celebrations and commemorations have made a wider public more aware of the Holocaust: The opening of the US Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC, occurred on 22 April 1993, the fiftieth anniversary of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. However, most notable were the fiftieth anniversary of D-Day in June 1994 and the worldwide commemoration of the end of World War Two in May 1995. Countless public events acknowledged the importance of the latter day for world history. In the German context, an interesting aspect has been highlighted by Lutz Niethammer. According to Niethammer the German memory is recurrent which is to mean that the further we are away from the Third Reich, the more we are aware of it. (21) In addition, there is also the so-called "Millennium-Factor": The close of the twentieth century stimulated a deliberate looking back at history. A reappraisal of history was desirable in order to be able to enter the twenty-first century with a clear conscience. At the same time "there is a powerful desire on the part of some to reopen this incomplete chapter in History." (22) Repeatedly Stuart Eizenstat stressed the importance of reappraising history on behalf of the US government: "Our task in the months ahead is to complete the unfinished business of the twentieth century's most traumatic and tragic events." (23) Eizenstat found similar words at an organizing seminar for the Washington Conference: "[...] it is not easy for any country to confront periods or issues in its recent history that reopen old wounds. But this can be a healing process, which can strengthen each of our countries and bring this century to a close on a high note of justice." (24) At least in public statements this "Millennium-Factor" is willingly and frequently mentioned. This "timely" factor -- despite its commonly used symbolic value -- must not be over-estimated. Much more important, especially in the negotiations for compensating former forced and slave labourers, is the growing age of the survivors. Their age leaves only little time to compensate them in a meaningful way. According to one statistic ten percent of Holocaust survivors die each year while a second claims that one percent die each month! 5. Legal Factor: Quite obviously legal aspects play a significant role in the efforts to gain compensation. This article is not the appropriate place to go into the legal details of the many lawsuits that have been (and are still) going on in several countries. The two most important points to keep in mind are: Firstly, the German Bundesentschadigungsgesetz ("Federal Compensation Law") clearly disadvantaged citizens of the former communist countries. The end of the Cold War opened up the opportunity for these citizens to demand compensation from Germany, something they were denied before the fall of the Iron Curtain. These claims, however, were largely unsuccessful. Secondly, class-action lawsuits were brought into U.S. courts against private companies and the German, Austrian, and Swiss governments. U.S. courts offered benefits of procedural mechanisms not available elsewhere, like class-action lawsuits and punitive damages, the prospect of unparalleled media coverage, and U.S. government involvement. (25) "Plaintiffs have used corporations as proxies for what are essentially attacks on government policy; because corporations do not have sovereign immunity." (26) These lawsuits put pressure on governments and influenced both their willingness to seek solutions out of court as well as the private sector's readiness to offer payments. Moreover, these cases remind us of history's human face. II. Developments: Governments took the lead in finding political solutions for these historical problems. The official commitment on the part of governments to deal with issues of Holocaust-era assets can be seen in a series of conferences that were held in the last few years: London Gold-Conference (December 1997), Washington Conference on Holocaust-era Assets (December 1998), Stockholm International Forum on the Holocaust (January 2000). Besides dealing with the economic and financial aspects of assets, to what extent were these conferences relevant to the study of the Holocaust? One of the aims of the London Gold-Conference was to "pool available knowledge on the historical facts relating to gold looted by the Nazis from both countries and individuals." (27) The goals of the Washington Conference were to | |
* share the results of scholarly research on historical facts related to
assets looted by the Nazis including art, insurance and other assets.
* strengthen the international commitment to open relevant national
archives and other records for research on Nazi-looted assets. (28)
| | Already in March 1998 the State Department had the idea of a third conference on Education, Research and Remembrance, which would turn into the Stockholm International Forum on the Holocaust. This conference was an unprecedented meeting of delegations from forty-six countries, several multilateral and international organisations (European Union, United Nations, and OSCE). The forum was part of a dual strategy: First, to get the issue back on a moral high ground away from assets to education, research and remembrance, and second, to put it on a trajectory. (29) "The significance of this historically important conference is that it begins, as we enter a new century, to move us away from what is important and immediate -- money and assets -- to what is enduring and lasting -- memory and education. Financial restitution, while critical, cannot be the last word on the Holocaust." (30) The relevance of these conferences for Holocaust scholars lies in their immediate impact on the field of research and archival work on Holocaust-related subjects. The Washington Conference adopted the "Washington Conference Principles On Nazi-Confiscated Art". These principles are non-binding rules unanimously agreed by the forty-four participating countries. Article II states: "Relevant records and archives should be open and accessible to researchers, in accordance with the guidelines of the International Council on Archives." (31) At the Washington Conference, the "Task Force for International Cooperation on Education, Research and Remembrance", the first intergovernmental body to deal with the legacy of the Holocaust in all its facets, issued a "Declaration on Archival Openness and Access". This declaration once again emphasizes the importance of historical research: "The governments comprising the International Task Force [...] agree on the importance of encouraging all archives, both public and private, to make their holdings more widely accessible. This will facilitate further research and encourage greater understanding of the Holocaust and its historical context." (32) The same is true for the "Declaration of the Stockholm International Forum on the Holocaust", where several key elements of the common consensus are written down: | |
3. Together we must uphold the troth of the Holocaust against those who
deny it. [...] and [...], to ensure that future generations can understand
the causes of the Holocaust and reflect upon its consequences.
4. We pledge to strengthen our efforts to promote education, remembrance
and research about the Holocaust, [...] and most importantly
5.We share a commitment to encourage the study of the Holocaust in all its
dimensions. We will promote education about the Holocaust in our schools
and universities, in our communities and encourage it in other
institutions.
7. We share a commitment to throw light on the still obscured shadows of
the Holocaust. We will take all necessary steps to facilitate the opening
of archives in order to ensure that all documents bearing on the Holocaust
are available to researchers. (33)
| | This declaration is not a legally binding document, but, as it states itself, it constitutes a real commitment on the part of the participating countries. Although some historians, given their own experience with various archives, will certainly contest this, I nevertheless believe that we can talk about a global commitment to archival openness. However, some members of the private sector in Austria and France, and in other countries as well, still boycott the opening of archives. Because of that an important aspect of historical research, the cooperation between the state and individuals/companies, i. e. the economic interests in a dictatorship, remains underexposed. (34) Archives (and libraries too) do not represent assets in the proper sense. However, they are significant since they are imperative aids in resolving problems of unclaimed property. Their significance was recognized in the context of the debate around Holocaust-era assets and hence re-evaluated. The value of historical sources does not lie solely in the documentation of historical facts, but in the safekeeping of essential legal evidence. An important aspect of the Nazi-Gold story was, for instance, the National Archives near Washington, DC. Beginning in the autumn of 1996, several teams of researchers from the different parties (plaintiffs and defendants) filled up its reading rooms. They all wanted to look through the relevant files at the same time and wooed for the favour of the responsible Project Director. (35) Suddenly archives and archivists were becoming more significant than ever before. The US government vehemently and repeatedly spoke up for the opening of all public and private archives. This policy became an integral part of its "Holocaust Diplomacy". One indicator for the willingness of governments to tackle their countries' past is the various national historical commissions that have been set up in the last years. (36) These commissions have provided historical expertise. In this respect the Bergier Commission in Switzerland has to be singled out, since it was the first to be established (December 1996), and it set a very high standard both in scope and depth of historical research. The lack of historically qualified information about the actual (economic) relationship between Switzerland and Nazi Germany was removed by the Bergier Commission. The Swiss bank-scandal is a key event in the search for compensation in so far as it stimulated a serious interest in the economic aspect of the Holocaust. According to historian Hans Mommsen this had a catalyst effect. (37) For example, a total of five investigating committees were established in the Netherlands to deal with art, Nazi gold, financial assets and other assets that were seized by the Japanese in the Dutch East Indies. The new historical debate caused a veritable crisis of national myths. The trial against the former SS-captain Erich Priebke, who was extradited from Argentina to Italy in December 1996, forced the country to seriously re-evaluate its wartime past. In France, a fierce controversy developed in connection with the trial against Maurice Papon, a former high-ranking official of the Vichy Regime. In April 1998 a jury in Bordeaux convicted him to ten years in prison for crimes against humanity. The discovery that some famous Parisians lived in government-funded housing built on Jewish property expropriated by the Vichy government added another element to the debate. Even the Vatican was affected: in March 1998 the "Commission for Religious Relations to Judaism" issued a declaration on the attitude of the Roman-Catholic Church towards Anti-Semitism and the Holocaust. The document admits errors and mistakes by the Vatican and concedes a partial co-responsibility for the passivity towards the persecution of Jews, but it also stresses the resistance activities of many Catholics against the persecution of Jews. In November 1999 the Vatican appointed a body, the "International Catholic-Jewish Commission", consisting of three Jewish and Catholic scholars respectively, whose task it is to investigate the role of the Vatican during the Holocaust, and especially the role of Pope Pius XII. (38) The commission issued its first intermediary report on 25 October 2000. (39) All these commissions are proof of a growing globalisation of historical research. But there is also reason to be suspicious: the establishment of "Independent Commissions of Experts" might serve less the political decision-making process than delaying the process of compensation. Not only historical commissions have provided a potential field of work for historians. The negotiations between Germany/Austria, the USA, and several Central and Eastern European countries to compensate former forced and slave labourers needed the expertise of historians too. Historians participated in the negotiating process and in establishing the categories of recipients. Their task consisted in determining the historical context to facilitate a political solution for a historical and legal dispute. Exactly here we are at the heart of the problem: to reappraise the historical facts as precisely as possible is immensely difficult, if not even impossible. Martin Dean concluded that if you look at it from a historical perspective you tend towards inaction because the problem is so huge. (40) A member of the German Embassy in Washington, DC, who also took part in the negotiations, even stated that historians confronted a problem that is hardly surmountable: "If you waited until all historians agreed on the number of victims, then not a single survivor would ever receive any payments." (41) To resolve the problem of historical accuracy, the historical adviser to the German government, Lutz Niethammer, invited experts to a workshop dealing with "Concepts and Data relating to the Question of Forced Labour" in July 1999. The workshop was supposed to mobilise international historical expertise on the subject and to secure the main elements of factual consensus in the debate. More than fifty leading experts, specialized academic historians, and institutional experts from the interested parties tried to come to a common understanding of the historical research on the question of forced labourers during the Third Reich. The participants asked the workshop organizers to inform the negotiating parties of the workshop's essential results at their next meeting in Washington, DC, on 15 July 1999. However, upon examination of the workshop's papers one arrives at the conclusion that only a very small portion of the concepts and results worked out by the historians found their way into the negotiations and the final version of the law. (42) The division into three different categories for surviving forced and slave labourers only achieves a minimum compromise, and the distinction itself is a dubious one since the status of the victims constantly changed. Furthermore, persons who served as forced labourers outside Germany's 1937 borders will receive no compensation at all. The fact that one group that already received payments may now possibly get money a second time, while others are being left out, could lead to tensions within the respective countries. During the negotiations historians were indirectly restricted in their freedom of action by the growing age of Holocaust survivors: this meant that results had to be provided as quickly as possible and as precisely as possible -- an impossible task to achieve. Through their expertise, historians had an immediate effect on the ongoing negotiations without fulfilling the function of a decision-maker per se. The role of the historians was to support the negotiating process. Part of the final agreement is that more companies are now willing to open their archives. This is a success which indirectly goes back to the work of historians. The work of independent historians and commissions provides the basis for the discussion about stolen and looted assets and is necessary when conducting possible compensation payments in accordance with the facts. Historical research is important to objectify emotional debates and quarrels. The task of historians is to put the historical record straight. However, given the amount, scattering and complexity of the documents, historians require sufficient time for sound and all-encompassing analysis. As a consequence, historians can also delay the process of compensation. Hence, the profession was partly under the pressure of politicians and the media to produce acceptable results in little time, a task which often proved to be difficult and in some cases (cf. forced labour) impossible. For this reason, and partly also because of the growing age of survivors, the responsible decision-makers did not wait for the historical research to be completed, but started negotiations and payments without knowing the final results of the historians' research. A typical example for this is the establishment of the Austrian restitution fund whose criteria were set up long before the Austrian Historical Commission published its final report on restitution. Parallel to this worldwide research undertaking a globalisation of the memory of the Holocaust can be observed. A wave of government-initiated apologies has been reaching Holocaust survivors (and victims of other genocides or acts of terror) around the world, coming to a climax at the Stockholm International Forum on the Holocaust. The best example for this international effort to commemorate the Holocaust is Sweden. It was, however, not only the need for Vergangenheitsbewaltigung ("coming-to-terms-with-the-past") and the sudden obligation for compensation that led the Swedish government to become active in the field of Holocaust education. At first it was the critical analysis of Sweden's (economic) policy during the war, which attracted public attention to Sweden's hitherto barely discussed wartime-past. Around the same time an opinion poll showed widespread ignorance amongst Swedish youth about the country's wartime policy. In addition, Sweden's economic crisis during the 1990s led to an increase in neo-Nazi activities. Reports about growing anti-Semitism in Switzerland in the course of the Nazi-Gold-debate also influenced Swedish policy. In early 1998 the Swedish government began distributing to all Swedish households a textbook about the Holocaust as part of its "Living History" project. By the end of the year more than 800,000 copies were distributed all over the country; it made the text the second most widely distributed book after the Bible. (43) At the same time the State Department in Washington became worried about the extent to which money and other assets were dominating the debate; it became concerned where the discussion on Holocaust-era assets would ultimately lead. The Swedish initiative therefore came at the right time and the State Department promised to support the Swedish government in their efforts to reach international cooperation in the field of Holocaust education. (44) In March 1998 Swedish Prime Minister Goran Persson wrote a letter to President Clinton and British Prime Minister Tony Blair in which he stated that international efforts should be undertaken to strengthen Holocaust awareness. In a meeting on 7 May 1998 ("the Stockholm meeting on the Holocaust") Sweden, Great Britain, and the USA announced the establishment of the Task Force for International Cooperation on Holocaust Education, Research and Remembrance. By the time of the Washington Conference Germany and Israel had joined the Task Force. Currently it consists of ten members. (45) The Task Force is the first endeavour to support Holocaust education, research, and remembrance on an international and intergovernmental level. "The work of the Task Force has already provided heartening proof of a new international consensus to put Holocaust education at the forefront of our collective consciousness." (46) To Wesley Fisher, a member of the US-delegation, the Task Force has, above all, an "informative aspect" in its work and a "political umbrella-function". (47) To Ambassador Jan Lundvik the Task Force also means closer cooperation between the states in this field; it also affected the bilateral relations between Sweden and Israel. Sweden has been a long-time critic of Israel's policy towards the Palestinians, yet the Swedish initiative helped to improve the relationship to Israel. (48) Sweden also receives praise from Eizenstat: "Perhaps no country is now conducting a more open and constructive debate, with less rancour and recrimination, than Sweden." (49) Certainly the Task Force is a success for the Swedish government and its diplomacy. According to the Swiss newspaper Neue Zurcher Zeitung: | |
The government in Stockholm succeeded in stealing away from the
gravitational field of the NaziGold-controversy. Immediate proof thereof is
that today Sweden, although traditionally not particularly popular in the
USA, clearly enjoys more sympathy than Switzerland among journalists and
intellectuals. (50)
| | III. Consequences for the study of the Holocaust 1. Media aspect. The media obviously played a crucial role in bringing the issue of Holocaust-era assets and compensation payments to the public's attention, and it was instrumental to the lobbying-activities of Jewish and Non-Jewish survivor-organisations in compelling governments to act. The media created an interest among the public that led to international public pressure. Historians, although admittedly to a far lesser degree than political actors, are now the object of the public's attention, and must be aware of that. Bringing the field of Holocaust studies closer to a wider public may comprise risks: in the continuing press coverage the victims were pushed aside, and in the ongoing debate it was more about the history of the thieves or who stole what and when, and less from whom! The media presented the economic exploitation during the Holocaust like a detective and criminal story -- quite understandably for commercial reasons. However, public reactions can only insufficiently be explained by the ever-present desire for sensation. They rather refer to the growing willingness of societies to get involved in a problematic issue. (51) This very fact offers new perspectives to historians of the Holocaust. 2. Legal aspect. The many class-action lawsuits created a "mini-boom" for historians. In consequence they have become actors in a political process. However, for many historians the participation in political decision-making procedures is new and also brings dangers along the way. The results of their work are no longer mere historical expertise, but much more. Results of the latest research are being cited in lawsuits against those companies whose history they write and can lead to serious legal consequences. There was and still is, as Dean aptly called it, "a competitive use of history in legal cases". (52) Setting up historical commissions also means that the traditional roles of historians and judges are reversed. Historians are called upon to be "judges". Not without reason the president of the Swiss National Historical Commission, Jean-Francois Bergier, stated: "We are more powerful than a court." (53) This assignment does not ask historians to determine the possible amount of compensation, but to make a judgement on what actually happened. Even this is unfamiliar to historians who hesitate to take on this new experience of judge or juror. Gerald Feldman describes this dilemma in the following words: "[...] they [historians] do not conduct decision-making, for their highest goal is not to decide over the question, whether guilty or innocent, but rather to historicize, in other words, to transcend the question of guilt and innocence and to come to an insight about human behaviour in a certain context." (54) 3. Economic aspect. Undoubtedly the most significant consequence can be observed in the area of economic history. For Raul Hilberg, looting and expropriation was one stage in the destruction of European Jewry. (55) Although Hilberg's standard work already offers basic insights into the economic aspect of the Holocaust, new information was added in recent years. Before that the financial and economic history of the Nazi regime was largely neglected. This can be seen in the fact that seventy-five percent of the relevant source material in the National Archives in Washington, DC, regarding Nazi gold was already accessible in 1982 and, by 1989, on the whole ninety percent was declassified for research. (56) For more than a decade the relevant archival material was available. Historians, however, did not deal with it. "Few were interested in the economic and financial aspects of the war, and even fewer were interested in Holocaust-era assets. For most scholars, the Holocaust is the greatest murder in history. Few addressed it as the greatest robbery in history." (57) Only recently has the economic aspect become the object of research: "The conversion of the Nazi period into cash value -- what has been lost, what has been taken from somebody, what has not been restituted, certainly is a new tendency in the historical research and in the public interest in the Nazi period." (58) It is no longer about "naming the principal culprits and to call them to account, but to understand the structure of the crime and to see the complexity of responsibility [...] at last about the political and moral culture of democracy after 1945." (59) What are the conclusions that can be drawn for the study of the Holocaust and for Holocaust scholars? Historians are directly and increasingly affected by growing public and media attention and the resulting politicisation. However, this politicisation of the Holocaust must be distinguished from its study. Historians are a party to the ongoing debate around compensation payments and have a specific agenda and interests. They might work for different parties involved in the conflict (lawyers, Jewish organisations, governments, victims, etc.), but their interests might not always match with those of their employers. Gerald Feldman, expert in insurance issues, publicly and openly expressed his concern about the dubious role of law firms: "The legal documents of some class action-lawsuits occasionally make me feel as if our worst students of history had opted for law school." (60) For decades the analysis of the Holocaust was marked by controversies around human behaviour: only since the 1980s have scholarly discussions centred on Nazi policy and its role in the mass murder, on ideological and structural factors. (61) The field of Holocaust studies developed three basic subdivisions or areas of specialization that focus on the perpetrators, the victims, and the bystanders. One consequence of the debate is that more and more foreign and non-Jewish victims have become the focus of attention. On the perpetrator-side the question of who aided the Nazi regime in implementing the "Final Solution" has received new impetus. Last but not least the role of the private sector is now seen under a completely different light. The recent and widely reported compensation payments have suddenly offered new challenges and chances for historians of the Holocaust. The academic marginalisation of the Holocaust -- as was the case in the 1950s and 1960s -- is certainly no longer existent, what, however, about the intentionalist-functionalist debate of the 1970s and 1980s? Christopher Browning has recently argued that "[t]he intentionalists emphasized the centrality of Adolf Hitler's ideology, predetermined plans, and opportunistic decision-making; functionalists emphasized the dysfunction and unplanned destructive implosion of unguided bureaucratic structure and tension-filled political movement [...] this controversy of the 1970s and 1980s is no longer the centre of Holocaust research." (62) Historians of the Holocaust have generally accepted that the Nazi regime gave fundamental priority to racial ideology over economic utility in carrying out the "Final Solution". There are a few historians who do not accept the primacy of ideological over economic factors, and who have argued in various ways that the "Final Solution" was a by-product of economically motivated decisions. (63) Yet, the "pragmatic and temporary use of Jewish labour" (and, I would add, the acquisition of assets), "was potentially in conflict with but also clearly subordinate to the regime's ideological commitment to total destruction." (64) Nonetheless, the economic motives did, as Dieter Pohl puts it, still add "an accelerating element to the persecution of Jews." (65) What we can draw from all of this is that even in an age of science and knowledge, where information can be spread around the globe within a mouse-click, political entities such as states are founded on their imagination and representations of the past. Through their work historians also contribute in shaping our politics of memory (of the Holocaust). We are beginning to develop an international consensus on justice that goes far beyond identifying looted assets and restoring them to their rightful owners. According to Gerald Feldman the reappraisal of history, which is connected to the restitution-process, also asks the question: Which price do we put on for knowing, which price for "not-wanting-to-know"? Therefore the decision about the historical circumstances, and indirectly about the material assessment, is a political one, which we -- as a society -- have to support. One can only wait to find out whether, as one commentator puts it, the moral of this story is a story of the moral. (66) IV. Wider repercussions Compensation payments do not only affect European states. In the US, 60,000 citizens of Japanese descent received U.S. $ 20,000 each for their internment in guarded camps during World War Two. Furthermore President Reagan apologized for their unjustified persecution. Even Japan is not exempted: On 7 December 1999 plaintiffs filed suit against Japanese corporations in California courts, alleging that these firms had also used slave labour during the war. Separate from this suit eleven US soldiers sued Japanese firms for allegedly having been used as forced labour. However, the prosecuting attorneys claimed, that the USA had agreed with Japan in the San Francisco peace treaty (1952) that the Japanese were not responsible. In August 2000 nine former Chinese forced labourers filed a similar complaint, demanding U.S. $ 1.9 million compensation. Tens of thousands of Chinese were brought to Japan and millions more were forced into slavery. The suit is based on a 1999 Californian law which permits suits from US territory until 2010 in cases of forced labour, provided the defendants are registered in California. (67) In December 2000 participants in a symbolic war crimes tribunal declared former Japanese emperor Hirohito guilty of rape and sexual enslavement of more than 200,000 women before and during the Second World War. The "court" accused Japan of having violated numerous international treaties. The system of troop-brothels violated the Hague Land Warfare Convention, the International Convention against Trade of Women and Children (1921), the Anti-Slavery convention (1926) and the agreement by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) against Forced Labour. (68) Hirohito was never forced to confront his moral responsibility for Japan's wartime activities. In exchange for Japan's capitulation the USA guaranteed him immunity, which meant he did not even have to appear in court as witness. After the war the USA supported Japan in the Cold War against Communist states such as China and North Korea. Victims' attempts to get their rights recognised in Japan did not have much chance, and Chinese courts have not been sufficiently capable to do so. When Japan and China renewed diplomatic relations in 1972, China renounced all demands for reparations. However, in 1995 the Chinese government for the first time officially acknowledged the right of Chinese victims to individually demand compensation from Japan. (69) The risk of all these deliberations is that other peoples or states could be encouraged to estimate in financial terms the crimes committed against their peoples and, via public opinion, find support for their concerns. Demands for compensation and reappraising crimes exist in many cases. In April 1996 the Truth and Reconciliation Commission began to shed light upon politically motivated crimes committed in South Africa between 1960 and 1993, the end of white supremacy. Its final report, submitted to president Mandela in October 1998, judged the Apartheid system a crime against humanity and the fight of the liberation movement as legitimate in principle. But it accuses both sides of gross human rights-violations. An opinion poll showed that two thirds of South Africans believe the commission had damaged race relations instead of reconciling the population. The government provided U.S. $ 500 million compensation for victims. (70) Guatemala has already investigated the crimes committed during the civil war (1960-1996). The Comision para el Esclarecimiento Historico ("Commission for Historical Instruction"), set up in 1997, presented its final report in February 1999. In the report, the Commission conceded that 200,000 people were killed or disappeared. The report also accuses the USA and Cuba, which supported the military and the guerilla respectively, of direct exertion of influence; President Clinton publicly apologized a few days afterwards. Chile is now also trying to reappraise the fate of thousands who disappeared during the military dictatorship (1973-1990). In August 1999 two Aborigines sued the government in Canberra for compensation for their forced assimilation as children into white families. However, in August 2000 a federal court rejected the complaint. The Australian native population is still waiting for a public apology for the governmentally sponsored policy of assimilation, which was practised for decades and is termed genocide by some experts. Class-action lawsuits also inspired African-Americans in the USA. However, the crime of slavery cannot be measured financially. The crimes date back more than 140 years -- there are no survivors. Nevertheless, since 1989 representative John Conyers from Michigan has introduced a resolution each year that calls slavery inhuman and asks Congress to work out proposals for compensation. The resolution has so far not found majority support. One insurance company did, however, publicly apologise for having supported slavery. Recently the topic was also on the agenda of the World Conference on Racism in Durban, South Africa. In 1993 a group of Bosnian refugees sued Radovan Karadzic, then "president" of the self-declared Bosnian Serb Republic. In its ruling the Second Circuit in New York found that although his crimes were committed "under the colour of law" (in a quasi-governmental capacity), because he was not the head of an acknowledged government he was not protected from suit by sovereign immunity. Since Karadzic remained outside the USA, the verdict was largely symbolic. However, the court's strongly worded decision restored momentum to human rights litigation in U.S. courts. (71) Today, war crimes tribunals exist in Arusha, Tanzania for the genocide in Rwanda and in The Hague for the former Yugoslavia. In 1998 President Clinton created the position of "Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues". There are also attempts to establish an efficient International Criminal Court, but these attempts have been largely stalled by US reluctance to fully participate. Numerous cases can be cited as comparisons to compensation payments for war crimes committed during the Second World War. The growing globalisation of the concept of Wiedergutmachung ("compensation") marks the post-Cold War period. A worldwide demand for moral compensation and reappraising history both challenge the foundation of international relations, the concept of national sovereignty. If states do not keep to the newly established norms they are viewed as uncooperative, without having to fear serious sanctions. Non-state actors initiated this development and were indirectly supported by the media and public opinion in their undertaking. The requests of NGOs partly found their continuation in US foreign policy. Thereupon, a "Holocaust-Diplomacy" developed to solve legal problems in a political manner and to secure national sovereignty, above all when economic interests were concerned. (72) Ariel Colonomos summarizes this process: | |
State bureaucracies recognized the necessity to integrate the principles
developed by non-state actors to forestall the risks of anarchy. The crisis
of Holocaust-era assets is highly instructive for the interaction between
the interests of state-regulation and the passion of remembering the
Holocaust. (73)
| | At the same time first signs of a transnational civil society appear on the horizon. This "global network of common values" expects accountability from states and governments, particularly in cases of war crimes or genocidal actions. The same demands also apply to multinational companies. Their past and current ethical behaviour is meticulously investigated, leading to the concept of "corporate responsibility". Above all, it is the economic interdependence between the actors that forces them to react to the changes within our global civil society. (1) Cf. Hilene Flanzbaum, "The Imaginary Jew and the American Poet", in Hilene Flanzbaum, The Americanization of the Holocaust (Baltimore, 1999), p.20. (2) Cf. Norman G. Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering (New York, 2000), p.14. (3) Ambassador Jan Lundvik, interview by author, tape recording, Washington, DC, 7 April 2000. (4) Dr Hans Mommsen, interview by author, tape recording, Washington, DC 7 April 2000 (my translation). (5) Forum Politische Bildung (ed.), Wieder gut machen? Enteignung, Zwangsarbeit, Entschadigung, Restitution (Wien, 1999), p.51 (my translation). (6) Gerald D. Feldman, Unternehmensgeschichte des Dritten Reichs und Verantwortung der Historiker. Raubgold und Versicherungen, Arisierung und Zwangsarbeit (Bonn, 1999), p.24. (7) Gotz Aly, "Das unbewaltigte Verbrechen. Die Ausrottung der europaischen Juden", Der Spiegel 53 (1999) p.36, 13 September 1999, p.196. (8) Michael Stolleis, "Der Historiker als Richter -- der Richter als Historiker", in Norbert Frei, Dirk van Laak, Michael Stolleis, Geschichte vor Gericht (Munchen, 2000), p.170. (9) For more information on this subject see Finkelstein's controversial book The Holocaust Industry. (10) Cf. Peter Novick, The Holocaust in American Life (Boston, 1999). (11) Mommsen, interview. (12) Cf. Novick, The Holocaust, 8. An outstanding example thereof is a cover story by the weekly newsmagazine Fortune in April 1998. The story portrayed five Holocaust survivors who became multi-millionaires in America. See Carol Loomis, "Out of the Holocaust", in Fortune 13 April 1998, pp.65-85. (13) Dr Martin Dean, interview by author, tape recording, Washington, DC, 25 April 2000. Dean has regularly acted as an expert witness in war crimes tribunals for the British and Australian governments; his research specialty is now Holocaust-era assets. (14) Istvan Deak, Jan T. Gross, Tony Judt (eds), The Politics of Retribution in Europe. World War II and its Aftermath (Princeton, 2000), p.xi. (15) Cf. "Ein Element der Verunsicherung, der Irritation, des Erschreckens", Blatter fur Deutsche und Internationale Politik, 5 (2000), p.561. (16) Cf. Feldman, Unternehmensgeschichte, p.13. (17) Dean, interview. (18) Konrad Scharinger, interview by author, tape recording, Washington, DC, 19 April 2000. (19) Martin Dean, "Die Enteignung `judischen Eigentums' im Reichskommissariat Ostland 1941-1944", in Fritz Bauer (ed.), `Arisierung' im Nationalsozialismus. Volksgemeinschaft, Raub und Gedachtnis (Frankfurt, 2000), p.201 (my translation). (20) Ibid. (21) Cf. "Wir wollen mit uns ins reine kommen", Der Spiegel 22 February 1999, p.66. (22) Bennett Freeman, interview by author, tape recording, Washington, DC, 27 April 2000. (23) U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Hearing on the Eizenstat Report regarding Holocaust Assets, 105th Cong., 1st sess., 15 May 1997, Prepared Testimony of Ambassador Smart E. Eizenstat. (24) Opening Statement Under Secretary Eizenstat, Washington Conference on Holocaust-era Assets, Organizing Seminar, June 30, 1998, , accessed 5 October 1998. (25) David Bosco, Anne-Marie Slaughter, "Plaintiff's Diplomacy", Foreign Affairs 79 (2000) 5, p.102. (26) Ibid., p.107. (27) Foreign & Commonwealth Office, Focus International: Post-Holocaust Issues (London: March, 2000). (28) , accessed 7 September 1998. (29) Freeman, interview. (30) Stockholm International Forum, Opening Remarks, Final Press Conference, Stuart Eizenstat, 28 January 2000. (31) . (32) James. D. Bindenagel (ed.), Washington Conference on Holocaust-era Assets November 30 - December 3, 1998, Proceedings (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1999), p.962. (33) Cf. . (34) Harold James, ,,Die Bergier-Kommission als Wahrheits-Kommission", in Frei, Laak, Stolleis, Geschichte, p.132. (35) Cf. Greg Bradsher, "Searching for Records Relating to Nazi Gold part II", The Record May 1998. , accessed 14 May 2000. (36) The following countries have or had National Historical Commissions dealing with Holocaust issues: Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Great Britain, Greece, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland ("Bergier-Commission"), Turkey, USA. (37) Mommsen, interview. (38) Cf. Alessandra Stanley, "Panel on Wartime Pope Seeks More Documents From Vatican," New York Times-Online 26 October 2000. However, in early August 2001 the Vatican declared the commission to have failed, after some Jewish members accused the Vatican of not being willing to throw light upon its past. Therefore, the commission's future remains uncertain to this date. (39) A great number of companies set up historical commissions or appointed historians with the task of investigating their companies' history, and subsequent studies led to widely acclaimed publications. These include Hans Mommsen and Manfred Grieger, Das Volkswagenwerk und seine Arbeiter im Dritten Reich (Dusseldorf, 1996); Lothar Gall (ed.), Die Deutsche Bank 1870-1995 (Munchen, 1995). (40) Dean, interview. (41) Scharinger, interview. (42) I would like to thank Dr Martin Dean, participant in this workshop, for providing me with copies of those papers and documents that were distributed at the workshop. (43) See. (44) Freeman, interview. (45) In addition to the countries already mentioned Austria, France, Italy, Netherlands, and Poland are members of the Task Force. For further information see. (46) Statement by Stuart Eizenstat, 25 September 1998, On the Occasion of the Second Working Group Meeting of the Task Force for International Cooperation on Holocaust Education, Remembrance and Research. . (47) Dr Wesley Fisher, interview by author, tape recording, Washington, DC, 18 April 2000. (48) Lundvik, interview. (49) U.S. and Allied Wartime and Postwar Relations and Negotiations With Argentina, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and Turkey on Looted Gold and German External Assets and U.S. Concerns About the Fate of the Wartime Ustasha Treasury (Washington, DC, 1998), p.xx. (50) "Jenseits von Toblerone und Matterhorn. Die Auswirkungen der Raubgold-Debatte auf das Image der Schweiz in den USA", Neue Zurcher Zeitung Online Dossiers -- Schatten des Zweiten Weltkriegs 12/13 December 1998 (my translation). (51) Cf. Helga Ring, Dieter Schroder, Rolf Surmann, "Die `Malaise' mit dem NS-Raubgold", Blatter fur Deutsche und Internationale Politik, no. 7 (1997), p.862. (52) Dean, interview. (53) "Wir sind machtiger als ein Gericht", Die Weltwoche 19 May 1997, p.31. (54) Feldmann, Unternehmensgeschichte, p. 26 (my translation). (55) Hilberg defines the following stages in the destruction: definition, expropriation, concentration, mobile killing squads and death camps. (56) Cf. Feldman, Unternehmensgeschichte, p.15. (57) Greg Bradsher, "Holocaust-era Assets Records and Research at the National Archive" (speech given at the Conference on "New Records-New Perspectives: World War II, the Holocaust, and the Rise of the State of Israel", 13-16 December 1998, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 14 December 1998). (58) Forum Politische Bildung (ed.), Wieder gut machen?, p.154. (59) Ring, Schroder, Surmann, "Die `Malaise'", p.869. (60) Feldmann, Unternehmensgeschichte, p.29. (61) Cf. Dieter Pohl, Holocaust. Die Ursachen, das Geschehen, die Folgen (Freiburg, 2000), p.10. (62) Christopher R. Browning, Nazi policy, Jewish workers, German killers (Cambridge, 2000), p.1. (63) Ibid., p.58. (64) Ibid., p.x. (65) Cf. Pohl, Holocaust, p. 14 (my translation). (66) Cf. Elisabeth Pechmann, "Was die Zukunft kostet", Der Standard, 10 January 2000, p.27. (67) Johnny Erling, "Zwangsarbeiter aus China klagen Japans Firmen", Der Standard, 26/27 August 2000, p.5. (68) Andre Kunz, "Tenno schuldig gesprochen", Der Standard, 13 December 2000, p.5. (69) Iris Chang, The rape of Nanking: the forgotten holocaust of World War II (New York, 1997) Chapter 9, note 2. (70) Mario von Baratta (ed.), Der Fischer Weltalmanach 2000 (Frankfurt, 1999), p.757. (71) Slaughter, Bosco, "Plaintiff's Diplomacy", p.105. (72) Ariel Colonomos, "La Mondialisation de la Restitution des Avoirs Juifs Spolies: Un Enjeu Ethique Global" Version Preliminaire, 6. Draft version on the occasion of the conference on World Capitalism, Governance and Community: "Toward a Corporate Millennium?", International Political Science Association, Quebec 1-6 August 2000 (my translation). I would like to thank Mr. Colonomos for providing me with a copy of this lecture. (73) Ibid., p.11. | |
THOMAS HUBER
University of Salzburg
|
