Archives, Books

and the Role of

Historical

Commissions

Mrs. Gill Bennett

CHIEF HISTORIAN, FOREIGN & COMMONWEALTH OFFICE

UNITED KINGDOM

British and Allied Restitution Policy during and

after the Second World War

Plenary Session on Archives, Books and Historical Commissions

During the Second World War, the major Allies - the United

Kingdom, United States of America and the Soviet Union - were

naturally more concerned with winning the war and bringing hostilities

to an end than they were with forward planning to attempt to repair the

damage done by that devastating conflict. Nonetheless, the documentary

evidence shows that postwar planning began to take shape as early as

1941-42, long before the end of the war could be foreseen; and that

restitution, by which was meant restoring the stolen property belonging

to European governments, was seen as an issue with early priority when

hostilities ended. The British and American governments, at least, took

the view that it should be far easier to reach agreement on restitution than

on reparations, and that restitution could be settled at an early stage. It

became a bone of contention between all three major Allies, and between

them and the European powers who had been occupied by Germany and

her allies.1

In Britain, serious consideration of postwar restitution was

prompted at an early stage by the representatives of the occupied

countries who based themselves in London. Exiled from their countries,

their principal concern in anticipating the end of hostilities was the

 

1

 Cf. Documents on British Policy Overseas (hereafter DBPO), Series I,

Volume V (HMSO, 1990), Preface, p.xiv: ‘In practice the problem...caused at

least as much damage to British relations with the liberated countries as an other

matter in clearing up after the war.’
722 WASHINGTON CONFERENCE ON HOLOCAUST-ERA ASSETS

recovery and restoration of their property and assets. In May 1941 the

Czechoslovak Minister for Foreign Affairs, Jan Masaryk, wrote to Frank

Roberts at the Foreign Office regarding the seizure by the German

occupying forces of Czechoslovak shares and securities, and asking the

British government to draw the attention of neutral governments to the

fact that the sale or Purchase of such securities would not be recognized

by the Czechoslovak government.2 At about the same time, the Ministry

of Economic Welfare suggested that joint action be taken by the Allied

governments to discourage the purchase by neutrals of securities seized

by Germany in occupied territories. Although it was decided at an

interdepartmental meeting in July 1941 that the question of Allied

declaration should be deferred “until the machinery of Allied

cooperation, which was still in its initial stages, had had been developed

rather further,”3 These two initiatives led to further consultation within

the British government and with the US government, and formed the

basis of the Inter-Allied Declaration against Acts of Dispossession

Committed in Territories under Enemy Occupation or Control issued on

5 January 1943 by British and 16 other governments of the United

Nations.4 Allied postwar restitution policies were based upon that

Declaration, which was intended as a “general statement of the attitude

of the governments concerned towards the acts of

dispossession...practiced by the enemy powers in the territories which

they have occupied or brought under their control by their successive

aggressions against the free peoples of the world.”5

The records show that the Allied governments were well aware

of the concerns of the occupied territories and appreciated the importance

of helping them to recover their looted property, both to enable their

economic reconstruction and in order to lessen possible resentment

against the three Great Powers who might be seen to be deciding policies

without consultation with them. The major Allies were, however, also

concerned with protecting their own postwar interests as powers who had

borne the brunt of prosecuting the war and paying for it: this was

 

2

 Letter of 21 May 1941, C 5610/550/12.

3

 Record of interdepartmental meeting held at the Foreign Office on 8 July 1941,

C 7081/550/12.

4

 The Declaration was published as Cmd. 6418 of 1943. See also FCO history

Note No. 11, Nazi Gold: Information from the British Archives (hereafter Nazi

Gold) Revised end. January 1997, pp.4-5.

5

 Draft guidance note on the proposed Allied Declaration, 21 November 1942,

W 15270/108/64.
ARCHIVES, BOOKS AND HISTORICAL COMMISSIONS 723

particularly true in the case of the Soviet Union, which had experienced

invasion and human and material loss on a vast scale, and was now

determined to extract maximum compensation. Even for the UK and

US, who had not been occupied, the costs had been great, the UK in

particular having been brought to a ‘financial Dunkirk’ by her war

effort.6 The sweeping measures of restitution sought by the smaller

allies, which included compensation for spoliation and the impressment

of goods and services from Germany, would have a damaging effect on

the reparation claims of the Big Three: as a memorandum prepared in the

British government's Trading with the Enemy Department in April 1944

noted, it was “clear that the small disarmed Allies are seeking to obtain

for themselves certain drastic powers in priority to the general reparation

claims of all the Allies.”7

These concerns confirmed the major Allies consensus that

restitution and reparation should, be treated as separate, if coordinated

issues. They were not in agreement, however, as to the relationship

between the two issues and even how they should be defined. Although

there was a shared understanding that restitution meant the return or

replacement of property lost or looted as a result of Nazi aggression, they

held strong and differing views on whether restitution policies should

encompass only property seized by force, or should include property

found by the Germans on occupation or paid for by them in forced or

voluntary sale. The definition was crucial to the linked issue of

reparation, that, is of using German assets to pay back those who had

footed the bill for the war, for the more that was included in restitution,

the less would be available for reparation shares for the Allies.

Nevertheless, restitution and reparation were not discussed at the same

meetings. The Allies agreed that talks on restitution should be relegated

to the Allied Reparation Commission, ostensibly because the subject was

too technical and complicated to be dealt with at major international

meetings such as the Potsdam Conference of July 1945, where France

was not represented; but also because reparation was the issue on which

agreement was most eagerly sought after (particularly by the Soviet

 

6

 A phrase used by Lord Keynes, the distinguished economist and advisor to HM

Treasury, in a paper of 13 August 1945 entitled ‘Our Overseas Financial

DBPO, Series I, Volume III, Britain and America: Negotiation

of the United States Loan, 3 August-7 December 1945 (UMSO, 1986), enclosure

in No. 6.

7

 TWED memo., Bank of England records.
724 WASHINGTON CONFERENCE ON HOLOCAUST-ERA ASSETS

Union), and which was thought to be the most politically sensitive and

potentially difficult to resolve.

Another complication was presented by the lack of agreement

between the Allies on what sort of Germany would emerge from the war,

an issue of vital importance to restitution policy. Would Germany be a

single economic unit, or divided?8 An industrialized state, or reduced to

pastoral status as envisioned by US Treasury Secretary Morgenthau in

1944?9 These questions had a direct bearing on what might be available

from Germany in terms of restitution. The Soviet Union was clear in the

view that Germany must be stripped and de-industrialized, but Britain,

and to a lesser degree the United States, was uneasily aware of the

potential financial burden that would fall on her in supporting a crippled

Germany with no economic life of its own. France was equally clear that

Germany must not retain any form of central administration, and with the

other occupied countries, wished to get back her looted possessions from

Germany as soon as possible, in addition to obtaining essential supplies

from her.

The UK, US, France and other occupied countries generally

agreed on the desirability of tackling restitution before reparation, partly

in order to speed up the movement of essential supplies from Germany,

and partly to remove restitutable items before the remainder were

calculated for the division of reparation shares: as Mr. Coulson of the

Foreign wrote to Mr. Playfair of the Treasury in February 1944, “if we

leave restitution until too late, there may be a danger that property

belonging to other countries will be handed over as deliveries in kind.”10

French Foreign Minister Georges Bidault, urging the Council of Foreign

Ministers in September 1945 towards the speedy adoption of restitution

policies, put it even more succinctly, “reparations from Germany should

be levied on German property and not on Allied property stolen by the

Germans.”11

 

8

 On the question of ‘one Germany or Two’, see DBPO, Series I, Volume I, The

Conference at Postdam, July-August 1945 (HMSO, 1984), Nos 153 and 164.

9

 For British views on the plan for the pastorialization of Gemany (printed in

Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS), the Conference at Quebec 1944,

pp. 101 – 5) advanced by Mr. Mongenthau in 1944, sec Sir. L. Underwood,

British Foreign Policy in the Second World (London, 1970), vol.V., pp. 222-9.

10 Letter of 23 February 1944, U 1322/104/70.

11 See DBPO, Series I, Volume II, Conferences and Conversations 1945:

London, Washington and Moscow (HMSO, 1985), No. 128.
ARCHIVES, BOOKS AND HISTORICAL COMMISSIONS 725

President Truman, meanwhile, had expressed the view that “the

required coordination between reparations and restitution shall not act to

retard unnecessarily (1) the withdrawal from Germany in the form of

restitution or any other form of supplies badly needed by Allied Nations

for their economic reconstruction or (2) the return of works of art to

those nations from which they were taken.”12 None of these approaches,

however, was satisfactory to the Soviet Union, whose chief aim was to

obtain as much as possible in reparations before restitution claims were

dealt with, to ensure maximum profit from the operation. Consequently,

the Soviet negotiators dealing with the definition of restitution and draft

directives to implement restitution played their hand long and

obstructively, so that by the end of June 1945 the US government,

exasperated with the delay, unilaterally launched a limited program of

restitution from their zone of Germany (restricted mainly to the return of

identifiable works of art – the one area where there was general

agreement to restitution) to the governments of Allied nations and the

removal from Germany of supplies needed by Allied governments for

their economic reconstruction.13

Although protesting the US action (“This subject is one on which

it is most desirable to work out a policy common to all four zones,

particular in view of the wider aim to secure the treatment of Germany as

an economic unit”), the British authorities moved towards a similar

policy in their own zone, acting on a directive issued by the War Office

on 14 August.14 Stressing that these were interim measures to be taken

while a formal policy was being worked out, the British Control

Commission was ordered to deliver to Allied governments identifiable

plant, equipment, livestock and valuables “in respect of which there is

satisfactory evidence that the property was located in the territory of the

Ally concerned and was the subject of an act of dispossessions by the

enemy.” Despite this directive, implementation proved problematic and

long-drawn out, and the British government was subject to considerable

criticism from the formerly occupied countries, who blamed the British

military authorities for the delay in restoring looted property.15

Meanwhile, the Soviet government stripped their own zone of Germany

and extracted as much in reparation from the other zones as they could.

 

12 Message from US ARC representative Pauley to Eisenhower, 27 June 1945,

FRUS, The Conference at Berlin, vol. I, pp. 514-15.

13 Ibid.

14 DBPO, Series I, Volume V, No. 6.

15 See, for example, DBPO, Series I, Volume I, No., 584.
726 WASHINGTON CONFERENCE ON HOLOCAUST-ERA ASSETS

British and American efforts to carry out restitution policies from their

zones of Germany continued into the winter of 1945. The formerly

occupied countries were allowed to send inspecting teams in to look for

their property while policies were worked out at an intergovernmental

level for the restitution of gold, money and securities.16 The

quadripartite control machinery addressed, if slowly and with difficulty,

the question of restitution, and by 1948 elaborate quadripartite machinery

was in place. Meanwhile, thc Occupation authorities in Germany

worked tirelessly to develop and implement policies that would enable

people in the Zones to keep alive and recover, where possible, the

necessities of survival: agricultural implements; livestock; and raw

material for essential industries. The documentation on their efforts

reveals frustration, prevarication, administrative obstruction and political

stalemate. On another level, however, it shows men and women working

in a new and very difficult situation to help in practical ways where they

could.

As the above summary account shows, the concern of the Allied

governments during and after the war was directed towards restituting

property to governments, not to individuals. They all accepted the

principle set out by the US delegation at Potsdam in a resolution of 22

July: “All questions of restitution shall be dealt with on behalf of the

injured property owners by the State of which they are citizens, unless

such State shall make other arrangements with the State from whose

territories the property was removed.”17 Discussion of restitution in the

1990s is naturally focused on individual losses suffered by those who

survived the conflict, or their heirs, a who may now need help. At the

time, however, the Allied governments were concerned with intergovernmental policies, not individual property, on the premise that there

was no prospect of restoring individual property until a nation’s

economic life were restarted and the urgent priorities of food, fuel, and

shelter addressed. The archival evidence reveals intergovernmental talks

and negotiations, not records of individual cases. That came later, when

the governments had signed the reparations agreement at Potsdam and

begun to settle between themselves questions of mutual debt and

 

16 See Nazi Gold I, and also Fco history Note No. 12, Nazi Gold: Information

from the British Archives Part II: Monetray Gold, Non-Monetary Gold and the

Tripartite Gold Commission (May 1997).

17 FRUS, ibid., pp.542-.
ARCHIVES, BOOKS AND HISTORICAL COMMISSIONS 727

repayment.18 This focus did not mean that governments were unaware or

uncaring of the terrible price that the Second World War had exacted on

a personal level from millions of their citizens. But it did mean that their

first priority was to restore some kind of political and economic

normality in Europe, so that people could stay alive through the winter,

and re-establish a base from which to rebuild their lives.

 

18 For an account of the postwar payments agreements and debt settlements

negotiated between Britain and her Allies and former enemies, see the Anneses

to FCO History Note No. 13, British Policy Towards Enemy Property during the

Second World War (April 1998).

Dr. Michael J. Kurtz

ASSISTANT ARCHIVIST

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION

UNITED STATES

Searching for Truth: The Relationship Between

National Archives and Independent

Commissions

Plenary Session on Archives, Books and Historical Commissions

This morning I would like to discuss the relationship between

national archives and independent commissions in the search for an

accurate historical record of what transpired during the Holocaust-era to

Jewish and other looted assets. I will use the experience of the U.S.

National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) as a case study

in discussing issues that affect access to the historical record. Hopefully,

our experience will offer some insights into the complementary roles of

national archives and the various independent commissions investigating

events of the Holocaust and World War II eras. For success in

establishing an accurate historical record and rectifying past injustices

lies to a very great extent in the relationship between national archives

and independent commissions.

I would like to begin by quoting from a letter to the editor of

Time magazine (March 17, 1997) by John W. Carlin, Archivist of the

United States.

“Everyone should understand the role of records in establishing

rights and legitimate identities and liberties. The dramatic case of the

search for Nazi gold is an excellent example of the value of records not

only in documenting historical facts but also in preserving essential

evidence. For us at the National Archives and Records Administration,

the role of preserving and providing access to this essential evidence of

history is at the core of our mission.”
730 WASHINGTON CONFERENCE ON HOLOCAUST-ERA ASSETS

Indeed, NARA’s holdings of records relating to all looted assets

- gold, art, insurance, dormant accounts - and the ability to make those

records available in a timely manner has demonstrated the value not only

for the United States but to peoples, governments, and organizations in

other countries. Though methods of operations may vary from country

to country, all national archives share a common vision of preserving the

historical record and making it available for historical and objective

scrutiny. In pursuing this vision the various national archives and

nations represented here share in NARA’s experience of assisting the

search for truth even in other countries.

Let me share NARA’s experience in providing access to records

relating to Holocaust-era looted assets; and something of what can be

expected by those national archives in the early stages of research and

reference activities.

The search for what became known as “Nazi Gold” records

began in March 1996, when researchers from Senator Alfonse

D’Amato’s office began coming to Archives II at College Park looking

for records relating to World War II-era dormant bank accounts of Jews

in Swiss banks. Within weeks the research expanded into issues

surrounding looted Nazi gold and other assets. By midsummer 1996, the

research room at College Park was the host to at least 15 researchers

daily - sometimes as many as 25 - conducting research in “Nazi Gold”

records. These records, contained within 30 record groups and

comprising some 15 million pages of documentation, were like a magnet,

drawing increasing numbers of researchers as the summer progressed.

In the early fall of 1996, President Clinton asked then Under

Secretary of Commerce Stuart E. Eizenstat, who also served as Special

Envoy of the Department of State on Property Restitution in Central and

Eastern Europe, to prepare a report that would “describe, to the fullest

extent possible, U.S. and Allied efforts to recover and restore this gold

[gold the Nazis looted from the central banks of occupied Europe, as

well as gold taken from individual victims of Nazi persecution] and other

assets stolen by Nazi Germany.” Eizenstat, in October, formed an 11-

agency Interagency Group on Nazi Assets, including NARA, to do the

research and produce the report, under the direction of William Z. Slany,

Historian, Department of State. Slany formed his research team,

consisting of researchers from the Departments of Defense, Treasury,

Justice, and State, the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, the Central

Intelligence Agency, and the Federal Reserve Board. They soon made

Archives II their home.
ARCHIVES, BOOKS AND HISTORICAL COMMISSIONS 731

This cross-government research effort, mandated by the

President, focused attention and effort in a manner that lower-level

efforts could never have achieved. The search for accountability and

justice requires leadership and support from the highest political levels.

The efforts of national archives and independent commissions will not be

successful without this type of support and on-going commitment.

During the next five months the demands on NARA’s staff were

enormous. Not only were both government and non-government

researchers making relentless demands for records, often the same

records at the same time, but also relevant records from the World War

II-era were accessioned from the Department of the Treasury in

November 1996, and the Federal Reserve Board in March 1997, and

declassified under great pressure to make them immediately available.

While research was being conducted during the fall of 1996 and

the following winter, the media discovered that an important aspect of

the “Nazi Gold” story was NARA: its records, its staff, and its

researchers. Thus, journalists and documentary film makers began

appearing on a regular basis during the winter of 1996-1997, and the first

stories highlighting NARA’s role appeared in November 1996 in USA

Today and in early February, 1997, in Le Monde. Time also ran a cover

story in late February regarding the quest for records relating to “Nazi

NARA management and staff realized that their work would

receive unprecedented scrutiny, a factor promising the possibility of

reward or peril. The work of all national archives and independent

commissions can expect similar scrutiny and accountability for its

professional performance.

THE NARA-SWISS CONNECTION

Starting in the winter of 1996-1997 and continuing since,

Archives II has become a gathering place for prominent individuals

representing various groups involved in the “Nazi Gold” and looted

assets phenomenon. This has been particularly true of the Swiss,

because their country was the initial and primary focus of the “Nazi

Gold” story. The NARA connection to the Swiss has become a very

close one, in part, because of an agreement between the United States

and Swiss governments. This agreement, signed in early 1997, by Under

Secretary Eizenstat and Ambassador Thomas Borer, head of the Swiss
732 WASHINGTON CONFERENCE ON HOLOCAUST-ERA ASSETS

Federal Task Force, provided that their respective countries, including

national archives, would closely cooperate.

Among the Swiss visiting Archives II have been a member of the

Swiss Federal Task Force; a member of the Swiss Parliament; the first

secretary of the Swiss Bankers Association; the chairman of the

Independent Commission of Experts (looking into all facets of World

War II Switzerland), and four commission members; and, members of

the Swiss Embassy staff. Researchers representing the Swiss Bankers

Association began their research at Archives II in spring of 1996, and

were joined in July 1997, by a four-member research team from the

Bergier Commission. Other researchers, including accountants from the

Volcker Committee (created by the Swiss Bankers Association and the

World Jewish Congress to investigate deposits made in Swiss banks by

victims of Nazi persecution), have also found NARA a useful source of

information.

During the past two years NARA and the Swiss Federal

Archives have developed close ties. There have been frequent

communications between Dr. Christoph Graf, the Director of the Swiss

Federal Archives, and NARA. In November 1997, Dr. Greg Bradsher,

NARA coordinator of Holocaust-era research, visited Dr. Graf and the

Swiss Federal Archives in Bern. He also met with Madeleine Kunin,

America’s Ambassador to Switzerland, and Jacques Picard, a member of

the Swiss Independent Commission of Experts, to discuss ongoing

research and NARA’s critical role in what President Clinton stated was

one of the aims of his Administration - to “bring whatever measure of

justice might be possible to Holocaust survivors, their families, and the

heirs of those who perished.”

THE MEDIA INTEREST

By the spring of 1997, NARA had become a magnet for the

media as well as researchers. The media, unable to obtain stories from

those government historians researching and drafting the first Eizenstat

Report, found that much of the document base upon which the report

would be derived was in NARA. Not only were the documents reviewed

and filmed, but researchers and NARA staff members were interviewed.

Feature stories appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Times,

The Jewish Times, and The Cleveland Plain Dealer, among other

newspapers.
ARCHIVES, BOOKS AND HISTORICAL COMMISSIONS 733

Also, major periodicals such as Newsweek and US News &

World Report contacted NARA for information. The History Channel,

the Arts and Entertainment Network, the Public Broadcasting System,

and the Cable News Network ran specials based on interviews with

NARA staff and researchers. Press interest has continued since May

1997. ABC News, Dateline NBC and a wide variety of print and visual

media have regularly contacted NARA, as have Swiss TV, Swedish

Public Radio, and numerous film makers, newspapers and magazines.

THE FIRST EIZENSTAT REPORT

On May 7, 1997, the Interagency Group on Nazi Assets, headed

by Ambassador Eizenstat, issued its report entitled U.S. and Allied

Efforts To Recover and Restore Gold and Other Assets Stolen or Hidden

by Germany During World War II: Preliminary Study. The report, based

primarily on NARA’s holdings, was quite critical of the Swiss and the

other World War II neutrals. The author of the report acknowledged

NARA’s contributions to the completion of the report. In his preface he

wrote “All of the research depended directly upon the unfailing support,

assistance, and encouragement of the Archivist of the United States and

the staff of the National Archives and Records Administration. Our

work simply could not have been carried out without this assistance... It

is to the credit of the National Archives staff that the needs of all

researchers-government and private, domestic and foreign-were met with

unfailing courtesy and without disruption to research schedules.”

My point in quoting this complimentary statement is to highlight

the key points on which NARA’s performance was judged; opening all

pertinent records and providing equal access, in a timely manner, to all

researchers. These are the key points on which any national archives

will be judged.

SPECIAL FINDING AIDS

The issue of equal access depends on the researchers’ ability to

navigate through often voluminous records, many untouched for decades.

Finding aids are indispensable tools in this effort. If such finding aids do

not exist, in all likelihood they will need to be created. This was

certainly NARA’s experience.
734 WASHINGTON CONFERENCE ON HOLOCAUST-ERA ASSETS

With the help of NARA staff and others, Dr. Bradsher prepared a

300-page finding aid to the records at Archives II. This finding aid

served as the appendix to the Interagency Group’s report. This report

and finding aid were issued on May 7, 1997, and immediately made

available at the Department of State’s website and sold by the U.S.

Government Printing Office. When the research widened to more

countries and more subjects, and there was a great desire for an expanded

finding aid to relevant records, we issued a 300-page supplemental

finding aid in the fall of 1997. It was placed on the Department of

State’s website in November 1997. A revised and expanded finding aid,

some 750 pages, was placed on the United States Holocaust Memorial

Museum’s website in March 1998 at ww.ushmm.org/assets/nazigold.htm.

NEW RECORDS

The legal bases on which national archives operate vary from

country to country. Likewise the type of records maintained will vary.

But for purpose of preservation and ease of access records related to

Holocaust-era assets and related issues are best placed within the custody

of national archives. Even NARA, which is the legal repository of the

historically valuable records of the U.S. Federal Government did not

have all pertinent records.

In 1996, The Clinton administration urged agencies to transfer

relevant records to the National Archives. In 1997, the Central

Intelligence Agency transferred Office of Strategic Services records, as

well as biographical profile documentation on Thomas McKittrick, the

wartime president of the Bank for International Settlements, and Emil

Puhl, the Reichsbank vice-president. The National Security Agency, on

the day before the report was released, transferred to NARA copies of

Army Security Agency intercepts of communications between the Swiss

legation in Washington, and the Swiss Foreign Ministry in Bern,

Switzerland. Although their records are not federal records, the Federal

Reserve Bank of New York sent to NARA two cubic feet of copies of

pertinent materials. During the summer of 1997, the Department of

Justice transferred to NARA a major body of Office of Alien Property

Trading With the Enemy Act case files. All of the records accessioned

were immediately declassified, if this had not already been done, and

made available and used by researchers.
ARCHIVES, BOOKS AND HISTORICAL COMMISSIONS 735

MORE RESEARCHERS

In the wake of the Eizenstat report, more researchers found their

way to College Park. Not only were the researchers, including claimants,

continuing to seek information about looted Nazi gold and related topics,

but the boundaries of research had widened to include questions relating

to looted securities, looted works of art, unclaimed and unpaid insurance

policies, refugee policies, slave labor practices, and wartime trade

between the neutrals and the Axis powers.

Law firms and other research teams involved in class action

litigation relating to dormant accounts in Swiss banks and unpaid

insurance policies of victims of Nazi persecution have found NARA’s

holdings critical to their research. Jewish organizations, banking

organizations, and art restitution research teams have also used NARA’s

holdings.

Foreign researchers have found NARA an important resource to

supplement the information available in the archival records in their own

countries. During the past year there have been dozens of private

researchers from various countries, including Austria, Sweden, the

Netherlands, France, Great Britain, Germany, and Switzerland. During

the summer of 1997, six researchers from Sweden made their home at

Archives II for several weeks, looking at records relating to their

country. In February 1998, researchers representing independent

commissions from Spain, Portugal, and Argentina began their research.

Representatives of foreign banks and foreign archivists, including those

from Israel and Sweden have also sought information.

LEGISLATIVE INTEREST

The quest for historical accountability draws great attention from

national legislative bodies. The work of national archives and

independent commissions need sustained political and legislative

support. The transparency of the work performed is a key element for

obtaining sustained support. Fortunately for NARA our experience with

Congress to date has been successful.

The Senate Banking Committee and the House Banking and

Financial Services Committee have made use of NARA’s holdings.

Senator D’Amato, appreciative of NARA’s efforts, said, “The National

Archives at College Park has been nothing less that amazing...Their help
736 WASHINGTON CONFERENCE ON HOLOCAUST-ERA ASSETS

was indispensable in establishing, continuing and expanding the research

of the Committee.”

The House committee was interested in records pertaining to

heirless assets in America. Committee staff research contributed to the

Holocaust Victims Redress Act being introduced in Congress during the

fall of 1997 and passed and signed by President Clinton on February 13,

1998. The law authorizes $20 million for restitution and $5 million for

archival research. In signing the law, the president noted that it

“recognizes the need for long overdue archival research... to set the

In addition, Congress passed, and the President signed,

legislation creating the United States Holocaust Presidential Advisory

Commission, which will address American-related Holocaust assets

issues.

NARA AND THE INTER AGENCY GROUP ON NAZI ASSETS

Within days of issuing its first report, the Inter Agency Group on

Nazi Assets was asked by political leaders to prepare another report.

Thus, in the summer of 1997, researchers from the Department of State,

the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency,

representing the Interagency Group on Nazi Assets, began to do their

research again with NARA’s assistance. Their efforts resulted in the

publication of a report, entitled 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. This report,

also authored by William Z. Slany; was issued in June 1998.

Dr. Slany and Dr. Bradsher traveled to Ascona, Switzerland, in

October 1997 to attend a conference on “Nazi gold” records and

research. This conference, sponsored by the Bergier Commission, was

attended by representatives from Argentina, Canada, Great Britain,

France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, and

the United States. At the conference, research methodology and archival

resources were among the primary topics of discussion. Rarely, if ever,

have archival records been so inextricably a part of such a major

international issue. The work of all the national archives is a key to the

successful conclusion of this quest for historical accountability.
ARCHIVES, BOOKS AND HISTORICAL COMMISSIONS 737

THE FUTURE

Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, speaking to the Swiss

parliament on November 15, 1997, said that “doing all we can to

discover the truth about the Holocaust and events related to it, and to act

on the consequence of that truth, are among the vital unfinished tasks of

this century.” Throughout the world, many countries, organizations,

groups, and individuals share this belief. Thus, interest in the looted

assets issue remains high. Commissions have been appointed in Sweden,

Portugal, Argentina, France, Belgium, Norway, the Netherlands,

Switzerland, the United States, and half a dozen other countries to

address issues relating to victims of Nazi persecution, postwar restitution

efforts, and dormant bank accounts.

In December 1997, hundreds of representatives from 41 nations

met in London, England at a conference sponsored by the British Foreign

Office to discuss looted gold and the disposition of the remaining gold

held by the Tripartite Gold Commission. Small conferences were also

held in Lisbon, Portugal, in February 1998 and in Monaco in March

1998. At the London meeting, Under Secretary of State Eizenstat

announced that another international conference would be held in

Washington, DC. This conference is now pushing forward into assets

and restitution issues beyond that of “Nazi Gold.”

If the independent commissions are to succeed in their task of

clarifying the historical record and assist with the issues of accountability

and compensation, they require the closest cooperation with their

national archives. The national archives need to bring all relevant

documentation into their custody, preserve them, and provide equal

access. This is necessarily a symbiotic relationship which requires

understanding the roles of each partner and providing support for their

respective tasks. Both parties will succeed together or fail together.

NARA certainly faces this challenge and responsibility with the soon to

commence work of the American Commission of independent experts.

Undoubtedly, interest in and all aspects of the looted assets

issues will continue for years, if not decades, and just as certainly

archival research will accompany that interest. NARA will continue to

be a critical resource for those doing “Nazi Gold” research, for contained

in its holdings is what the Archivist terms “essential evidence.” This

evidence, with the assistance of NARA’s skilled and dedicated staff, will

be made available and used for a multitude of purposes. The end result

of the various research efforts at NARA and elsewhere, one hopes, will
738 WASHINGTON CONFERENCE ON HOLOCAUST-ERA ASSETS

contribute to countries, including the United States, being more capable

of addressing their pasts and accepting their current responsibilities.

Thank you.
Dr. Siegfried Büttner

VICE PRESIDENT, GERMAN FEDERAL ARCHIVES

GERMANY

The Treatment of Enemy Archives in

the Third Reich

Plenary Session on Archives, Books and Role of Historical

Commissions

PRELIMINARY REMARK

History is, in a complex manner, information embedded in a

context. Historical facts cannot be understood in any other way.

Archives consist of recorded facts and a context which can either

be depicted openly or hidden in the structure of the documents, the

archives and the overall portrayal of events.

While, however, understanding history involves linking

historical facts and complex phenomena with present-day individual and

social awareness, archives are solely bound by the visible as well as

hidden historical origin and context from which they emerged. For they

should enable every future generation to gain access to information

which will help it understand what has been. That is the purpose of the

archival principle of provenance.

Unfortunately, my short contribution deals with a historical

situation in which archivists themselves failed to uphold this principle

and helped damage, distort and destroy records in the pursuit of goals

which they regarded as victorious and enduring.

However, the Nazis did not invent the concept of using archives

and records for one's own "superior" principles and objectives. It existed

up until recently, and indeed still exists.

What the Nazis, both organizations and individuals, did can only

be compared to a limited degree to what had previously taken place

between enemy states. Rather, they began encroachments on archival
740 WASHINGTON CONFERENCE ON HOLOCAUST-ERA ASSETS

records which, in most cases, were irreversible and could only be

rectified to a certain extent. The outcome of this and subsequent

measures carried out by the Allies under the conditions of the Cold War

was that records and documents of German origin of all kinds, including

those of Jewish communities, are today fragmented and scattered around

the world.

The disaster began with the immediate confiscation in 1933 of

the archives (as well as libraries and research institutions) of the Nazis'

political opponents with the aim, on the one hand, of using them in the

direct fight against Communists, Social Democrats, left-wing trade

unionists and their organizations and, on the other, as propaganda against

these groups. The archives, including those of the national executive of

the German Trade Union Federation and some of its affiliated trade

unions were handed over to the archives of the NSDAP and the German

Labor Front, as trophies as it were.

From 1938 onwards the archives (and academic institutions) of

those intellectual, religious and racial groups considered enemies by the

Nazis, e.g. Jews, Freemasons, writers, artists, etc., were seized and

exploited for the purposes of so-called research and propaganda with the

aim of "eradicating" them from the "Volkskörper" (national community).

One of the most important Jewish archives, the complete archive of

German Jews, fell, without it being formally seized, into the hands of the

Reichssippenamt (Reich Genealogy Office) and under the control of the

Security Police (SD) of the SS, and was then used as a central agency for

Jewish genealogy up to the 1940s. Although this helped to preserve the

records of the Jewish community in Berlin and many others collated in

this archive, it was in the end no less fragmented than other German

archives.

From the outbreak of war the archives in the annexed and

occupied territories were subject to many different measures aimed at

protecting and securing, exploiting and seizing them, in some cases

removing and destroying them, the latter most pronounced in Poland and

the Soviet Union. Naturally, this included not only the archives of the

state there and everywhere else but also all those of the aforementioned

"enemies". Several specialized organizations were set up for this purpose

in addition to the police and the SD.

The most specialized was the Archivschutz (Archive Protection)

headed by Ernst Zipfel, Archivschutzbeauftragter (Commissioner for

Archive Protection) in the Reich Ministry of the Interior, who was also

President of the Reich Archive and Director of the Prussian Secret State

Archive. In addition to his function of protecting archives he quickly
ARCHIVES, BOOKS AND HISTORICAL COMMISSIONS 741

gained corresponding responsibilities in Reichsleiter Rosenberg's task

force (Einsatzstab Reichsleiter Rosenberg - ERR) and in the Reich

Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories. The archivists sent out by

him were set different tasks depending on the country in which they were

working: in Poland it was to deprive the Polish people of its identity, in

Denmark, for example, and in The Netherlands their task was to

genuinely conserve buildings and records. The army (the head of the

army archive) seconded archivists independent of the Commissioner for

Archive Protection but with the same aims.

The ERR was established in occupied France with a view to

capturing academic material and works of art, in particular those of

Jewish origin. It later developed its most diverse and extensive

operations in the East. The feigned academic objective of researching

Jewry was used as a pretext to seize major academic libraries and

collections, as well as the personal papers of academics and religious

leaders.

The task of the Künsberg Special Unit (Sonderkommando

Künsberg), which was answerable to the Federal Foreign Office, was to

continue in Warsaw what had been started in Paris with the seizure of the

documents of the Quai d'Orsay; however, the unit took advantage of

being with the combat troops in Poland to extend its terms of reference to

include libraries and works of art, including those in the territory of the

Soviet Union and Norway.

Other organizations, such as the Reichskommissar für die

Festigung deutschen Volkstums (Reich Commissioner for the

Consolidation of German Traditions) and the Ahnenerbe (Ancestral

Heritage) subordinate to him sometimes cooperated and sometimes

competed with one another, so that loot often became a bone of

contention.

The SD and the Gestapo remained predominant.

Even after the war had ended an interest in being able to identify

and combat opponents under mostly humane conditions based on the rule

of law but, at the same time, governed by the laws of the Cold War,

determined the fate of the archives stolen by the Nazis and the files and

documents of the Reich and NSDAP subsequently seized by the Allies.

The Soviet occupying power acted likewise in this regard:

In general, the fate of archives and documents seized from Nazi

organizations cannot be understood fully without looking at the treatment

of German archives, which was quite different in East and West. But that

is not on the agenda here.
742 WASHINGTON CONFERENCE ON HOLOCAUST-ERA ASSETS

In the former GDR, however, we still find fragments of archives

or documents which were originally seized by the SD or Gestapo, e.g.

unpublished papers of émigré writers from Paris or Amsterdam.

In the Secret State Archive of Prussian Cultural Heritage there

are also some documents taken from Polish archives (e.g. the 74

medieval documents relating to the Teutonic Order).

As far as I know, the western German state archives have no

material of this kind.

The documents handed over by the former Soviet Union to the

state security service of the GDR also include papers seized earlier, e.g.

those belonging to Office VII of the Reichssicher heitshauptamt (Reich

Central Security Office) ("Ideological research and evaluation"), a large

part of which is still in Moscow. They include many individual papers

whose origin can no longer be established.

In general, however, the situation created by measures taken by

Nazi Germany against "enemy" archives did not last long: in the western

occupied territories especially the American military government

collected the archival material stolen by the Nazis in the Offenbach

Archival Depot in order to hand it back to the owners; in particular this

included most of the material stolen by the ERR. The Red Army initially

kept most material as booty. Parts of it are still in the special archive

(Archive for the Preservation of Historical Documents), others were

returned to Germany. Before they reached the state archives, the GDR

security service (Stasi) raked through them on behalf of the Party.

After the fall of the Communist regime, the Central State

Archive of the GDR began to return seized archives (the estates of

émigrés, the archive of the exiled publishing house Allert and Lange in

Amsterdam), and the Federal Archives continue to act in accordance

with the owners' instructions. However, returns on such a small scale are

out of all proportion to the magnitude of the overall damage which will

have a long-term impact.

The damage was caused by the fact that parts of the written

records of one and the same historical individual (a person, organization,

authority, government) fell into the area of responsibility of various

agencies, was used for different purposes, i.e. often reordered and opened

up with differing aims, which leads to many misunderstandings, perhaps

especially when all lists of documents are made available alongside each

other in the Internet.
ARCHIVES, BOOKS AND HISTORICAL COMMISSIONS 743

IF THE DAMAGE CANNOT BE REMEDIED WHAT LESSONS CAN

AT LEAST BE LEARNED FROM THIS?

1. Archives are not like any other cultural asset which might be

looted in times of war. Each archive belongs to a historical individual.

He or she will have the most enduring interest in preserving an archive

because it is part of their lives.

2. For this reason the confiscation or long-term disposal over the

archive is an ineffective means of fostering historical truth. Even good

intentions, for example the punishment of German war criminals, arise

from prevailing conditions and should have as little effect as possible on

the archival records themselves.

3. When it comes to dealing with the past each individual and

organization has a responsibility, especially with regard to written

records, to ensure that the historical truth (what has happened) remains

unadulterated. Hopefully the controversial discussions of the last few

years have helped to foster awareness of this responsibility, also in

private organizations.

4. Individuals and peoples do not always live in harmony; they

have conflicts and wage wars. If they involve their archives in this they

damage more than each other. Once the conflict is over our viewpoints

and attitudes change, as the ending of the Cold War showed. After that it

is certainly conceivable that interests concerning written historical

records can also be reconciled, thus enabling a people, for instance, to

gain its own historical portrayal from the records of the occupiers during

a period of foreign rule or occupation by opening them up and perhaps

microfilming them. The cooperation between the National Archives, the

Institute of Contemporary History and the Federal Archives at the end of

the seventies in opening up and filming the files of the Office of the

Military Government of Germany, U.S. Element (OMGUS) is, in my

view, an example of this. I hope that the ongoing process of reconciling

interests in various directions with all our eastern neighbors can be

brought to a speedy conclusion.

No conflict should involve archival records; their use is liable

enough as it is to provoke conflict.

Professor Jean-François Bergier

CHAIRMAN OF THE INDEPENDENT COMMISSION OF EXPERTS (ICE)

“SWITZERLAND – SECOND WORLD WAR”

SWITZERLAND

Statement translated from the original French by the

U.S. Department of State Office of Language Services, Translating Division

Plenary Session on Archives, Books and Historical Commissions

In my capacity as Chairman of the Independent Commission of

Experts: Switzerland – Second World War, first of all I want to welcome

all the participants at this Conference and thank those who took the

initiative for it and organized it, particularly Mr. Stuart Eizenstat and Mr.

Miles Lerman. My Commission highly values and attaches great

importance to this meeting, inasmuch as it could be conclusive with

respect to the two issues in which we are all involved: restitution of the

property of the victims, and an obligation to remember. Beyond these

specific requirements, knowledge about our pasts is the foundation of our

national identity, as well as a condition for harmony among our

countries.

It is in this spirit that our Commission was established by the

Swiss Authorities in December 1996 and assigned the mission of

conducting the historical and legal investigation of all questions that

could shed light on the responsibility of Switzerland, its public and

private institutions, or its private citizens, in the tragic events brought

about by National Socialism and the Second World War. Thus, these

investigations concern not only unclaimed assets, insurance policies, or

stolen or missing cultural property, but also anything that may have

intentionally or unintentionally caused harm to the victims and anything

that may have afforded an advantage to the National Socialist regime, its

allies, and its accomplices. The Commission must submit the results of

its work to the Swiss Federal Council within five years, that is, by 2001.

It has for this purpose a budget of 22 million francs and the legal

privilege to override the secrecy of business records, subject to respect

for the requirement of confidentiality.
746 WASHINGTON CONFERENCE ON HOLOCAUST-ERA ASSETS

The investigations in progress are proving more complex than

anticipated owing to the myriad questions that require examination and

the volume of sources to be consulted, sources which are widely

scattered. In addition, we should resist the pressure of those who, either

because memories are, inevitably, imprecise, or because they wish to

draw a partial or one-sided picture, do not want to know about this, or

think they already know everything about it.

In order to prevent any misunderstandings, it should be clearly

noted here today that the primary task of the Commission I chair is not to

locate every individual asset deposited in Switzerland and identify its

rightful owner. We do not have the means to do this, and other

institutions have been set up for this purpose, such as the Volcker

Committee for unclaimed funds in banks. The Commission must, above

all, reveal the networks and mechanisms of the various transactions that

have caused such assets to exist. It must attempt to analyze and

comprehend the context in which these transactions were conducted and

the means and conditions that made them possible. It must calculate

their profits or their costs. It must account for strategies, those of the

Federal State and those of the individuals involved. Its approach is

economic, political, and legal, but must also bear in mind the attitudes

and trends of the era in question.

At the London Conference on Nazi Gold, we introduced a highly

preliminary, very provisional balance sheet of the gold transactions of

the National Bank of Switzerland. In it we proposed definitions of gold

that were more precise and historically more useful than the political

distinction customarily made between monetary and non-monetary gold.

And we presented statistical data contrasting the amount of gold held by

the German Reichsbank, classified by source, with the amount deposited

in Switzerland on behalf of Germany or other Central Banks. This past

May we submitted more complete findings, which reveal that, on the one

hand, as of 1941, the National Bank of Switzerland suspected, and as of

1943, had knowledge of, the suspicious, to say the least, origin of a large

part of the gold it was acquiring from the Reichsbank, but that, on the

other hand, it did not know that about 120 kilograms of gold deposited in

its coffers had been extracted from the victims, melted down, and recast.

The National Bank continued its purchases, at reduced levels, until the

end of the War, justifying them with legal and political arguments that do

not stand up to examination. We have also revealed the more discreet

role played by some commercial banks and other economic agents such

as insurance companies.
ARCHIVES, BOOKS AND HISTORICAL COMMISSIONS 747

Next year, probably in the fall, we will publish a new report

focusing on refugees. A document was made available to all participants

at this Conference which presents an outline of this report and the

principal questions it will seek to answer. It will put the Swiss policy on

refugees back in the international context; it will examine the good or not

so good reasons for this restrictive policy and the reactions of the

population; it will attempt, despite the shortage of sources, to count the

refugees admitted or turned away at various times between 1933 and

1945, at various segments of a border that was, as of 1940, completely

controlled by the Axis and, as of September 1943, exclusively by agents

of the Third Reich. It will describe the material and psychological

conditions of the refugees and will assess the financing of their

admission (approximately 100,000 civilians) and the action of the Jewish

organizations, as well as of the charitable institutions, churches, labor

unions, etc., that were active in this field. It will also address the

infamous issue of the “J,” the Evian Conference of 1938, the ransoms

demanded for the safety of certain people, and the role of those figures

who dared to break the law in order to save lives, such as Police Officer

Grüninger in St. Gallen in 1938 and Consul Lutz in Budapest in 1944.

The Commission is not yet ready to present here today the

results of its investigations on stolen or lost cultural property. A report

of the Federal Office of Culture on this subject will be published in a few

days, and will serve as a basis for our own work. This work, however,

can be fully accomplished only in close cooperation with the authorities

of the other countries, since in this area, international networks operated,

and the links must be traced. We are expecting a great deal from this

Conference in terms of laying the groundwork for managing such

cooperation.

Beyond these issues, our efforts are directed essentially toward

learning about the behavior and activities of private Swiss companies:

banks, insurance companies, business firms, and industrial corporations.

We are looking at the “repossession”, in Germany and the occupied

countries, of Jewish-owned businesses and real estate (Aryanization), the

use of forced labor, the export of weapons or any other hardware that

could have contributed to the war effort of either the Germans or the

Allies, movements of capital, sales of licenses, etc. From another

perspective, we must take into account the Swiss need for supplies, fuel,

and raw materials. Under the circumstances in which it found itself,

Switzerland had to make concessions to both sides but especially to

Germany, of which it was – geographically – the hostage. The issue is

how much room Swiss economic policy had to maneuver and to what
748 WASHINGTON CONFERENCE ON HOLOCAUST-ERA ASSETS

extent that room to maneuver was perceived by public or private leaders.

That is where Switzerland’s responsibilities lie.

This is a very extensive program to be achieved in a relatively

short period of time, that is, by the end of the year 2001. It will have to

address all items listed above with as much clarity as possible. This

effort to achieve clarity is something we owe to the memory of our

victims; to Switzerland and its inhabitants, whose lives it has affected

and rendered unsettled; and to the international community.

Permit me to conclude with two wishes:

It is my wish that our Conference will implement the means

urgently needed for international cooperation in identifying the problems

and the sources, as well as in establishing an effective methodology. In

particular, it is necessary to render possible and convenient access to all

relevant sources and to prepare lists of such sources. I propose that an

international working group be established to ensure follow-up for this

Conference in terms of investigations.

It is also my wish that the sharing of our work with one another

will enable us to overcome prejudices and taboos, as well as futile and

costly confrontations, and will help us be sure of our history so that we

can look towards the future with confidence. Mrs. Madeleine Albright

recalled here yesterday the power of memory, reason, and justice. It is

up to us to help restore this power.
Prof. Eric Ketelaar

LEGAL COUNSEL, NATIONAL ARCHIVES

THE NETHERLANDS

Understanding Archives of the People, by the

People, and for the People

Break-out Session on Archives and Books

SUMMARY

Archival documents are more than bits and pieces of

information. Assessing the evidential and research values of archives

presupposes an understanding of records creation. Records are created to

support and manage work, to record why, when, where, in what capacity

and by whom what actions were carried out. These actions determine

context and structure of an archival fonds, and convey meaning of the

form and the content of a document. Presentation of archival information

has to focus on context, structure, and form, rather than content.

Thorough research commissioned by the Netherlands

commissions on Holocaust-assets has established a catalogue of actions

and actors involved in the looting of assets (1940-1945), their

recuperation (1945-1950), restoration of legal rights and restitution

(1945-1971) and compensation (1950-1987). This catalogue will be

published on December 9th. It is a 364 pages guide of 75 agencies, both

public and private, Dutch and German, and their archives (ranging from

one file to more than 2500 running meters of shelving). Even with this

guide, searching for individual names will be difficult and timeconsuming, since many institutions did not create indexes to their

records, and because one individual case may have been dealt with by

different agencies, each according to its mandate.
750 WASHINGTON CONFERENCE ON HOLOCAUST-ERA ASSETS

Understanding of archives contributes to enhancing their

evidential and research value. Such research requires free and equal

access to public archives ‘of the people, by the people, and for the

people’. According to Freedom of Information and archival legislation in

the Netherlands, no government record or archival document from the

‘40s, ‘50s and ‘60s is totally closed: they are either accessible for

anyone, Dutch and non-Dutch, or – if restricted e.g. to protect the privacy

of living individuals – by special clearance if the interest of the applicant

outweighs the interest served by the restrictions. Any decision

concerning access is liable to judicial appeal.

A framework for legislation and regulations is provided by the

Draft Recommendation for a Standard European Policy on Access to

Archives, prepared by the Council of Europe. Archival practice is

guided by the code of ethics, adopted by the International Council on

Archives. It requires from archivists that they promote the widest

possible access to archival material and provide an impartial service to

all users.

“That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom; and

that government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall

not perish from the earth."

 - Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address (1863)

INTRODUCTION

From these famous words I have taken the title of my paper.

Archives - well preserved and accessible to the people - are as essential

in a free democracy as government of the people, by the people, and for

the people. Because archives are not only tools of government, not only

sources for historical research: access to public archives gives the people

the possibility to exercise their rights and to control their government, its

successes, and its failures.

Archives of the people, by the people, and for the people. As the

great American archival teacher Theodore Schellenberg affirmed:

"Public records obviously define the relations of the government to the

governed. They are the ultimate proof for all permanent civic rights and

privileges; and the immediate proof for all temporary property and

financial rights that are derived from or are connected with the citizen's
ARCHIVES, BOOKS AND HISTORICAL COMMISSIONS 751

relations to the government."1 The consequence is that the public

archivist is not merely a state official, but truly a public servant, who has

"an implicit obligation to safeguard the integrity of the contractual

relationship that exists between citizens and their government which the

records document; and to intercede on behalf of record subjects in

administering access to such records so as to ensure that citizens' rights

are protected under the terms of that contract".2 Concomitant is the

people's right on access to public archives. A Draft Recommendation on

a European Policy on Access to Archives, currently under consideration

within the Council of Europe3, identifies access to public archives as 'part

of the rights of the citizen, and, by extension, in a political system that

respects democratic values, part of human rights'.

Hundred years ago, 1898, Zola's 'J'accuse' started the Dreyfus

affair.4 Zola engaged chemical experts and archivists to expose the

infamous bordereau as a forgery. Giry and other professors of the Ecole

des Chartes were among the scholars who in court and in the press used

their scientific methodologies in taking a stand in the political debate that

had grown out of the Dreyfus affair. They made it clear that their

professional ethics, based upon integrity and objectivity of the scientific

method, should play a role in the public arena too. Scientific integrity

and objectivity should be the instruments to restore truth and human

dignity.

Today, as in 1898, archivists can be called to arms, when public

affairs question their professional ethics, when archivists have to use

their moral defense to defend societal values, which are at the heart of

the archivist's endeavor. Archivists have to cry out and to denounce any

manipulation of evidence so as to conceal or distort facts. The code of

ethics, adopted in 1996 by the International Council on Archives,

requires from archivists that they promote the widest possible access to

archival material and provide an impartial service to all users.

 

1

 T.R. Schellenberg, Modern archives. Principles and techniques (Chicago

1956) p.9.

2

 H. MacNeil, Without consent; the ethics of disclosing personal information in

public archives (Metuchen; NJ, 1992) p. 144.

3

 Council of Europe, Draft Recommendation on a European Policy on Access to

Archives, cc/livre (97) 7 rev.

4

 B.Joly, L’École des chartes et l’affaire Dreyfus, in: Bibliothèque de l’École des

chartes 147 (1989) p. 611-671; A.B. Spitzer, Historical truth and lies about the

past. Reflections on Dewey, Dreyfus, de Man and Reagan (London 1996) p. 50.
752 WASHINGTON CONFERENCE ON HOLOCAUST-ERA ASSETS

The same year 1898 saw the publication, in The Netherlands, of

the 'Manual for the arrangement and description of archives,' drawn up at

the instruction of the Netherlands Society of Archivists, by Muller, Feith

en Fruin. Their Manual has had a global impact: it was translated into

German, Italian, French, Bulgarian, English, Portuguese, Chinese, and

Estonian. The Manual was the first to formulate and disseminate

coherently the basic principles of archival science and methodology.

These principles are the principle of respect for archival structure and the

principle of provenance: archives of the same provenance are a whole

whose historically determined individual structure may not be disturbed,

but on the contrary should be restored if necessary; every archival

document should be part of the fonds to which it by nature belongs and to

which it should be restored. We respect the provenance, the

administrative context in which the archival document, as a component

part of the fonds, was created or received. Archives (records) are created,

received and maintained by institutions and individuals by virtue of and

as a by-product of their activities and business. Archival information is

intrinsically bound to a specific business process, be it managing an

agency, treating a patient or looting Holocaust-assets. That origin as

transaction-tied information gives archives their special value as a

historical source. This contextuality gives each record its specific

meaning.

Why referring to the 1898 Dutch manual for archival processing

and to the role archivists played in the 1898 Dreyfus affair?

Because today, in bringing to light the sources revealing what

happened in the looting, recuperation, restoration and restitution of

Holocaust-era assets, archivists have to deliver the same message as in

1898. Professional integrity and objectivity are the instruments to sustain

society's dignity and to restore truth. That requires the widest possible

and impartial access to archival material. Archival information that must

be processed, presented, used, and interpreted in the context in which the

archival documents originated.
ARCHIVES, BOOKS AND HISTORICAL COMMISSIONS 753

ACCESS TO ARCHIVES5

Access to public records and archives is realized at different

levels or layers.6

The first layer is legislation: Freedom of Information legislation,

archival legislation, legislation protecting personal data and personal

privacy.7 Dutch archival legislation states that access restrictions must be

specified at the time the records are transferred to a repository. The

conditions of transfer therefore constitute a second layer of regulation of

access.

Legislation should specify an authority that may grant

exceptional access to closed records. This 'special clearance' is the third

layer of regulation of access.

In The Netherlands, the conditions of transfer for personal

information often include a regulation stipulating that archives that are

sensitive are only accessible to researchers who have signed an

undertaking. This undertaking constitutes a fourth layer for regulating

access to and publication of personal information.

The fifth layer of access regulation is formed by the physical and

practical regulations that archives have in place to prevent records being

examined by unauthorized persons: storage in secure repositories

(sometimes, additionally, in locked cases), careful application and

lending procedures, an archives control system (such as Archeion, in use

in all state archives in The Netherlands) that alerts whenever a part of a

record group may not be issued to a researcher etc.

 

5

 See my: 'Archives of the people, by the people, for the people', in: S.A.

Argiefblad / S.A. Archives Journal 34 (1992) p. 5-16; 'The right to know, the

right to forget ? Personal information in public archives', in: Archives and

manuscripts. The Journal of the Australian Society of Archivists 23 (1995) p. 8-

17; ' Der Archivar als Vermittler zwischen der toten Vergangenheit und dem

lebenden Volk', in: Der Archivar 48 (1995) col. 589-596; 'Can we trust

information ?', in: The International Information & Library Review 29 (1997) p.

333-338. All four have been reprinted in: Eric Ketelaar, The Archival Image.

Collected essays (Hilversum 1997).

6

 I have derived this image of layers of protection from: H. Raaska, Personal

privacy and the archivist (unpublished paper; NARA Professional Career

Training Program; 1989).

7

 Access to archives. Legal aspects. Proceedings of the thirty-second

International Conference of the Round Table on Archives XXXII Edinburgh

1997 (Paris 1998).
754 WASHINGTON CONFERENCE ON HOLOCAUST-ERA ASSETS

The final layer is the area where professional ethics guide access

to archives.

Let us consider these six layers.

1. In The Netherlands the archives law limits the grounds to

restrict access to public records transferred to a public repository.

Restrictions may be imposed solely in the interests of

• the respect for personal privacy or

• the interest of the State or its allies or

• the prevention of disproportionate advantage or

• disadvantage to the persons concerned or to third parties

2. Each restriction on access must be specified in a formal

document, with reference to the legal basis and the purpose of

the restriction. Restrictions should preferably apply to individual

items, and not indiscriminately to whole bodies of records.

3. In 1996 the International Council on Archives published

'Principles for archives and current records legislation', building

upon an earlier set of principles and guidelines developed in an

UNESCO study.8 One of these principles is 'Legislation should

specify an authority who may grant exceptional access to closed

records...This power should be exercised within a process that

provides a further opportunity for citizens to appeal the decision'.

Such a special clearance procedure was recommended as early as

1985 by the 23rd International Conference of the Round Table

on Archives under the proviso that such procedure 'should be

transparent and governed by objective criteria, so as to guarantee

equal treatment of all interested parties'.9 The Council of

Europe’s Draft Recommendation on a European Policy on

Access to Archives also insists on 'the possibility of seeking

from the competent authority special permission for access to

documents that are not freely available. Special permissions for

access should be granted under the same conditions to all users

who request them.'

 

8

 See www.archives.ca/ica. The UNESCO study was: E. Ketelaar, Archival and

records management legislation and regulations; a RAMP study with guidelines

(Paris 1985).

9

 Access to archives and privacy. Proceedings of the twenty-third International

Archival Round Table Conference, Austin 1985 (Paris 1987) p. 174.
ARCHIVES, BOOKS AND HISTORICAL COMMISSIONS 755

Under Dutch legislation, whenever access has been restricted,

the archival authority can, having heard the transferring agency,

lift the restrictions on access or set them aside in favor of a

particular applicant, if the interest of the applicant's ability to

consult or use the document outweighs the interest of the

restrictions. Generally speaking, the interest of the citizen,

seeking for his rights, outweighs other interests which may be

served by access restrictions (and which were specified in the

document mentioned under 2). In this way we can serve

individuals researching the Holocaust-era, while still adhering to

a general restriction on access.

4. Another means to give access to records, which are generally

closed to protect privacy, in Dutch archival institutions, is the

declaration that researchers have to sign before they are granted

access to specific sensitive records. That declaration is based

upon regulations that the Council of Ministers drew up in 1973

with regard to the use of Council minutes and related documents.

The researcher confirms with his or her signature

• that the data obtained from the documents will be used

solely for a specified purpose

• that he or she shall divulge nothing, by publication or by any

other means, which might harm disproportionately the

interests of living people

• that he or she shall not publish anything from the documents

without written permission of the State or municipal

archivist concerned

• that he or she shall use information from the documents for

which no permission has been obtained to publish, for his or

her own study only and that this information will not be

communicated to third parties.

This arrangement was accepted in 1984 by the Society of Dutch

Archivists, on the proposal of a commission consisting of both

archivists and researchers. The arrangement resembles the

'contractual agreement' procedure, which is applied in the states

of Michigan and New York. In Michigan it has even been

codified: an act stipulates that confidential records from

government agencies 'shall be kept confidential pursuant to the

 
756 WASHINGTON CONFERENCE ON HOLOCAUST-ERA ASSETS

terms of a written agreement'.10 One of the main differences,

however, between the Dutch and the American arrangement is

that the latter includes a penalty of $ 1 000 for violating the

provisions of the agreement. In The Netherlands we do not need

such a penalty, because the researcher - historian or journalist -

knows the issue at stake: his future research. If he fails to

comply, the researcher risks exclusion by virtue of the authority

of the archivist to refuse access, if in his opinion documents

'cannot be safely entrusted to the applicant'. Since this came into

force in 1968 the sanction has been applied in the General State

Archives in The Hague only two or three times, during the whole

period, out of a hundred to two hundred applications per year to

get access to confidential records. And in our Dutch permissive

society, with its long tradition of a free press and unhampered

scholarly research, it is the exception that it appears necessary to

consult with the researcher about a change in his manuscript to

prevent disproportionate harm to the interests of still living

people.

5. The Council of Europe's Draft Recommendation on a

European Policy on Access to Archives rightly points to the fact

that how liberal the access rules may be, 'the actual

communication of archives depends primarily on the facilities

and on the human and financial resources which an archives

service possesses for the preservation and the processing of its

holdings'. But in my opinion this should never be an argument to

withhold documents from victims seeking their rights!

In providing access to sensitive records it may be necessary to

involve social workers and other counselors who help people to

cope with the psychological effects of a confrontation of the

past. This is being done in Amsterdam at the Foundation for

Jewish Social Work and at the Institute for War Documentation,

as is the case in the archives of Metropolitan London with regard

to patient records.

The first five forms of access regulation - legislation, conditions

of transfer, special clearance, researchers' undertakings, and

 

10 R.M. Baumann, The administration of access to confidential records in state

archives: common practices and the need for a model law, in: American

Archivist 49 (1986) p. 360-366.
ARCHIVES, BOOKS AND HISTORICAL COMMISSIONS 757

physical conditions - appear sufficient enough. But not quite.

The first four protective layers consist partly of flexible

provisions. For example, how will, in the case of the first and

second layers, 'respect for personal privacy' be substantiated,

how does one weigh up the need to restrict the disclosure of

personal information against the interests of the researcher who

requests dispensation or special clearance, at the third layer, how

does one test at the fourth layer whether the interests of living

persons could be unfairly impaired?

6. At this point we reach the sixth and final layer, an area not

formally and legally defined: an area where only professional

ethics can provide guidance11. The code of ethics, adopted in

1996 by the International Council on Archives, requires from

archivists that they promote the widest possible access to

archival material and provide an impartial service to all users.

Archivists should protect the integrity of archives and should

resist pressure from any source to manipulate evidence so as to

conceal or distort facts. They also have to take into account the

rights and interests of owners and data subjects and they must

think of the user. Archivists should discourage unreasonable

restrictions on access and use. They should observe faithfully

and apply impartially all agreements made at the time of

acquisition, but, in the interest of liberalization of access, should

renegotiate conditions in accordance with changes of

circumstance.12

UNDERSTANDING ARCHIVES

Access to archives, in Dutch archival terminology, covers two

concepts: the availability of archival documents for consultation as a

 

11 Anne Cooke, 'A code of ethics for archivists: some points for discussion', in:

Archives and Manuscripts, 15, no. 2 (1987), p. 8 quotes EW. Russell (1978):

professional ethics being of the kind which are too particular to be controlled by

law, by-law or regulation but too general to be regarded solely as a matter for

the individual judgement of the archivist concerned. See G.M. Peterson -T.

Huskamp Peterson, Archives & Manuscripts: Law (Chicago 1985), for the

difference between ethical and formal legal responsibilities.

12

 Code of ethics adopted by the General Assembly of the International Council

on Archives, 6 September 1996: www.archives.ca/ica.
758 WASHINGTON CONFERENCE ON HOLOCAUST-ERA ASSETS

result of legal authorization (openbaarheid) and the consultability

(toegankelijkheid): the intellectual control of archives by arrangement

and description in such a way that a user can effectively consult the

archives. 'Records that are merely accumulated, and never arranged or

described, are as unavailable to future users as records that have been

destroyed,' Sharon Thibodeau remarks. 13 She continues by specifying

the fundamental principles for arrangement and description, first

articulated in the Dutch Manual of 1898. Underlying these principles

mentioned in the introduction of this paper (the principle of respect for

archival structure and the principle of provenance) is the premise that the

arrangement and description of a body of records 'reflect a knowledge of

its custodial history as well as an understanding of any previously

established methods of intellectual control', to quote Thibodeau. And it is

here that the archivist as well as the researcher is daunted by the

documentary heritage of the Holocaust-era. Not only the sheer bulk of

the archives is intimidating. Most archives have been subject to intricate

adventures during and after World War II: dislocation, dispersion,

confounding disarrangement, re-use of original documents in building

new files, destruction of parts of an archival fonds and restructuring of

the remainder, etc. The resulting confusion is not only bound to confuse

and intimidate any researcher, but it also has made the evidential and

historical value of many archives and records questionable at least, not to

say void.

This complexity of the Holocaust-era archives is aggravated by

the intricacies of the administrative organizations, agencies and

institutions that created, processed, used and maintained the records -

both during and after the war. An archival fonds is a fabric of

relationships and context. Because we have to respect that structure and

to understand that fabric, we have to study its history, to get insight in the

historical process that determined the structure of the fonds. This

contextual approach is a powerful tool for any user to find, to use and to

interpret his sources properly. But this presupposes that the user is

enabled by the archivist to have access to the records' contextual

history.14

 

13 S. Gibbs Thibodeau, Archival arrangement and description, in: J.G.

Bradsher (ed.), Managing archives and archival institutions (Chicago 1989) p.

67

14 E. Ketelaar, Archival Theory and the Dutch Manual, in: Archivaria 41

(Spring 1996) p. 31-40, reprinted in E. Ketelaar, The Archival Image. Collected

essays (Hilversum 1997) p. 55-65; R.J. Cox, Archival anchorites. Building
ARCHIVES, BOOKS AND HISTORICAL COMMISSIONS 759

Let us take as an example the fate of diamonds of Dutch Jews. In

1942 Jews had to hand in all jewelry and other valuables to Lippmann

Rosenthal & Co., Sarphatistraat (Liro), who also received all or most

goods confiscated by the Germans on deportation. Diamonds were used

by Jews as payment to get a

'Sperr' stamp which temporarily exempted them from

deportation. Diamonds deposited by Jews with the Amsterdamsche Bank

were confiscated by the Devisenschutzkommando Niederlande and sent

to Berlin in January 1945. To Berlin were also brought (by Seyss-Inquart

personally) the diamonds 'safeguarded' by the Rijksbureau voor Diamant,

locked away in bank safes in Arnhem and looted by the Germans in

September 1944. A third shipment to Berlin consisted of the diamonds of

Jewish diamond cutters and dealers, requisitioned by the leader of the

Devisenschutzkommando and sent by him to Berlin in March 1945.

Restitution and reparations payment with regard to diamonds

after the war were dealt with by different agencies and organizations: the

Liquidators of Liro (LVVS), the Recuperation Bureau of the Ministry of

Finance, the Foundation Jewelry-Committee (Stichting Sieraden-Comité)

and the Foundation Recuperated Diamonds (Stichting Teruggevoerde

Diamant), the Commissioner General for Netherlands Economic

Recuperation, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Netherlands Military

Mission at the Allied Control Council, the Restitution Control Council

OMGGUS, the Reparation, Deliveries and Restitution Division UK, the

Wiedergutmachungsämter.

To discover the fate of a particular set of diamonds, one has -

before actually searching the archives - to get acquainted with the

different 'missions' of both looting and restituting agencies and

organizations, and to check to which competency the looting, restitution

and reparation of that type of diamonds might have belonged.

Furthermore one has to study the administrative histories of the

institutions and the vicissitudes of their archives and to ascertain where

within the archival remains of an individual agency one has to search.

All this pertains to the contextual and custodial history of the records.

Through this jungle the searcher is led by the archivist, cutting a

path, pointing to pitfalls and peculiarities, assisting without taking over.

Serving as an itinerary in The Netherlands is a guide of actions and

actors involved in the looting of assets (1940-1945), their recuperation

(1945-1950), restoration of legal rights and restitution (1945-1971) and

 

public memory in the era of the culture wars, in: MultiCultural Review 7/2 (June

1998) p. 57.
760 WASHINGTON CONFERENCE ON HOLOCAUST-ERA ASSETS

compensation (1950-1987).15 This research guide - to be published on

December 9th - is the fruit of thorough research commissioned by the

Netherlands commissions on Holocaust-assets. It is a 364 pages guide of

75 agencies, both public and private, Dutch and German, and their

archives (ranging from one file to more than 2500 running meters of

shelving). The guide is the key to grasping the institutional and

administrative history of the agencies, and the custodial history of the

archives. It is a prerequisite for finding one's way to and into the archives

and to understanding the archives.

The guide also mentions finding aids that may guide the searcher

to the document level. Sometimes a particular fonds is enriched by lists

and indexes with names, in other cases the files may be arranged

physically according to names. The guide explains the meaning of the

various signs, symbols, stamps, and references like ' H.R.' (presumably

for Hausrat = household effects), with a number between 1 and 23015,

used by Liro and, after the war, by various recuperation, restoration and

restitution agencies. For indeed, German and Dutch bureaucrats

maintained their files, card indexes and ledgers so meticulously that,

once we understand the administrative and record keeping history, their

detailed accounts can be checked as if their creators are still working at

their desks.

All too often, however, the custodian of the material can only

identify the boxes on the shelves, and has to leave it to the researcher to

browse through the documents and to find the needle in the haystack.

Searching for individual names will be difficult and time-consuming,

since many institutions did not create indexes to their records, and

because one individual case may have been dealt with by different

agencies, each according to its mandate.

By dissecting the machinery of looting, recuperation, restoration

and restitution of Holocaust-era assets, as well as making its archival

vestiges contextually transparent, the guide constitutes a major

instrument not only in understanding archives as a tool for research. We

also plan to develop the guide into an educational instrument. To teach

young people how bureaucratic control, registration and accounting

during and after the war were used for good and for evil purposes. This

 

15 J.M.L. van Boxmeer - P.C.A. Lamboo - H.A.J. van Schie, Onderzoekgids

Archieven Joodse oorlogsgetroffenen. Overzicht van archieven met gegevens

over roof, recuperatie, rechtsherstel en schadevergoeding van vermogens van

Joden in Nederland in de periode 1940-1987, vervaardigd in opdracht van de

Commissie van Onderzoek Liro-archieven (Den Haag 1998).
ARCHIVES, BOOKS AND HISTORICAL COMMISSIONS 761

may assist in Holocaust education and remembrance but also serve

current concerns about registration of immigrants, discrimination,

invasion of privacy etc. In this broader framework the guide will

constitute a major instrument in understanding ARCHIVES OF THE

PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, AND FOR THE PEOPLE.

Rev. Fr. Marcel Chappin

PROFESSOR, GREGORIANA PONTIFICAL UNIVERSITY

THE HOLY SEE

Statement by The Holy See about the

Accessibility of its Archives

Break-out Session on Archives and Books

1. The Holy See wants to call to mind the principles of

International Legislation regarding State Archives, in which is stated that

every State is autonomous in its exclusive right of regulating the

conservation and the accessibility of its Archives. It is therefore an

inherent attribute of the sovereign character of the Holy See, that it alone

must be the judge of the pace, timing and scope of the process of making

its Archives accessible for research.

2. Ecclesiastical Archives cannot be compared with the Archives

of secular governments and institutions. Because of the primarily

spiritual mission of the Church, documentation in these archives mostly

include discussions and correspondence on religious and spiritual

matters, which also concern the “forum internum”, the realm of

conscience, on which guidance and counsel are sought and offered for

the spiritual life of persons. This applies to Diocesan archives and those

of Religious Orders, but also to the Archives of the Holy See, since no

aspect of its activity, including its diplomatic one, is really separate from

its primary spiritual, religious, apostolic and pastoral mission.

The Church would be unfaithful to her mission, and indeed

hindered in that same mission, if she would not maintain a scrupulous

regard for the most intimate sphere of personal privacy. This respect for

privacy is intrinsic and unrenounceable for the life of the Church. She

has a sacrosanct duty towards the persons who entrusted her with their

secrets and cannot and should not betray them, for any reason
764 WASHINGTON CONFERENCE ON HOLOCAUST-ERA ASSETS

whatsoever. People have to be sure that their innermost secrets are safe

with the Church.

3. This fact explains that the process of making Church Archives

gradually accessible for research - as the Holy See is doing for more

than a century - is necessarily a slow one. A scrupulous screening has

to take place, one which can only be done by those who have enough

knowledge not only of civil and ecclesiastical history, but are also

experts in moral theology and canon law.

The period up until 1922 has been completed. More recent

decades are being processed now.

4. However, for the Holocaust-Era is at disposal the exhaustive

information in the twelve volumes of the Actes et Documents du SaintSiège relatifs à la Deuxième Guerre Mondiale. Notwithstanding

insinuations, the curators of this publication have in no way tried to hide

documents that would incriminate the Holy See, as explained by one of

them, Fr. Pierre Blet S.J., in an article in Civiltà Cattolica, published

March 21, 1998 (La Civiltà Cattolica 1998 I 531-541); an English

translation is available.

 5. An attentive study of the 12 volumes will reveal the constant

policy of the Holy See: trying to stop the outbreak of the war, to alleviate

the suffering of its victims and to help to hide and to save as many

persecuted people as possible. The same volumes as well as other

published testimonies also reveal the motivation why there was not an

explicit public protest. The Holy See judged that such a protest would

not stop the persecutions, but only result in even more victims, while at

the same time it would block the prudent but persistent efforts to save

human lives through the means of diplomacy. Many statements of

gratitude, also by Jewish persons, organizations and institutions, are

found on the public record. They thank the Holy See for what it achieved

by its persistent efforts.

Would an open protest have saved more lives? There is no

answer to this question that is and always will be hypothetical. If there is

any hint at all, the contrary seems to be true. The open protest of the

Dutch bishops resulted in even more victims. In any case, the Holy See

rejects all accusations that it did not do its best to save as many lives as it

could in the given circumstances.

6. The Holy See is aware of the fact that the 12 volumes do not

make for quick and easy reading, although is has to insist that they be

taken seriously. It wants however to draw the attention to the summary

prepared recently by Fr. Pierre Blet, S.J., “Pie XII et la Seconde Guerre
ARCHIVES, BOOKS AND HISTORICAL COMMISSIONS 765

Mondiale d’après les archives du Vatican”. An English translation is

soon to be published by the Paulist Press.

7. During this Conference and the preceding one, the words

"truth and justice" have been uttered many times. The Holy See wants to

insist also on "trust", if a better world is to be built. No fruitful discussion

and dialogue, no real understanding and reconciliation are possible

without mutual respect and trust. One has to be confident that the other is

not telling lies or in any other way being deceitful or following some

hidden agenda. If the Holy See is not trusted about what it has said or

published so far, why should it expect to be trusted afterwards?

It is essential that the respect and trust shown by the Holy See to

others, are in no less measure shown by those others to the Holy See.

Dr. Yaacov Lozowick

DIRECTOR OF THE ARCHIVES

YAD VASHEM

THE HOLOCAUST MARTYRS’ AND HEROES’

REMEMBRANCE AUTHORITY

The Names of the Jews

Break-out Session on Archives and Books

Yad Vashem in Jerusalem is uniquely positioned to assist in

attempts to restore Holocaust era assets to their rightful owners, in two

ways:

1. THE LIST OF JEWS IN THE HOLOCAUST

Since there never was a full list of Jews persecuted in the

Holocaust, no archive can ever be in possession of it. In lieu of such a

list, however, many thousands of local lists were created by various

agencies during and after the Holocaust, and Yad Vashem has been

collecting them for decades: Approximately 10,000 lists to date, with a

rough estimate of 16-20,000,000 relevant names.

We have created a computerized database with information

about the lists; however, only a small proportion of the names themselves

have so far been computerized. The collection of additional lists is an

actively pursued, ongoing project, and many hundreds of lists are added

each year.

Some of the information is overlapping data about the same

individuals: i.e., an attempt to cross a border in 1941, a deportation list

from 1942, a list of transfers between camps in 1943, and an official

post-Holocaust death notice. The amount of information on each

individual varies from list to list. Only by collating all the information do

we acquire a detailed profile of the individual victims. Such collating,
768 WASHINGTON CONFERENCE ON HOLOCAUST-ERA ASSETS

however, is extremely complex, and hence the need for Yad Vashem’s

second set of capabilities:

2. THE ORGANIZED KNOWLEDGE

In the volatile cauldron that was Europe in the first half of the

20th century, individuals often went by more than one name, cities and

towns changed their names or were simultaneously referred to differently

by their various ethnic inhabitants, administrative regions were in a state

of constant flux, and borders often moved. Even countries were often

founded only to be abolished a few years later, perhaps to be reestablished later on. The lists reflect this chaos: the same individual may

appear on two lists with different names, places of birth and vocation,

and still be the same person; elsewhere, two individuals who seem likely

to be identical, may indeed not be – and all of the information will be

accurate and authentic.

In an attempt to overcome these pitfalls, Yad Vashem has

created computerized tools, or thesauri, that contain libraries of

knowledge about the politics, semantics and geography of Europe in the

20th century. We have collated information from contemporary lexicons,

atlases, indexes, as well as executed data-mining on the documentation in

our collections. For example, we can tell that Jewish men in Hungary

who were called Avraham at home, called themselves Adolf outside.

This custom did not apply anywhere else, and thus is useful only for

identifying Adolfs and Avrahams from Hungary – a country whose

borders changed frequently. These computerized thesauri contain

hundreds of thousands of items, and will be essential in any attempt to

integrate information on individuals in the Holocaust.

The combined significance of the lists of victims and the

organized knowledge is that it is now possible to create a list, at times

quite detailed, of the Jews in the Holocaust: the sic million who perished

and hundreds of thousands who survived. These resources are

indispensable to any effort to identify individuals, their assets, their fate,

or their possible heirs.
ARCHIVES, BOOKS AND HISTORICAL COMMISSIONS 769

Yad Vashem alone has both the extensive data and the know-how to

cross-reference and collate them.

Description Estimated number Type of Persons Digitization

Hall of Names:

Pages of

Testimony

1,700,000 Jews who

perished

450,000 digitized

without scanning

Hall of Names:

Survivors

160,000 Jews who

survived

Partially digitized

Yizkor books 1,000,000 Jews who

perished

Non-digitized

Archival lists 15-17,000,000 People of all

types, but mainly

Jews

Non-digitized

Total 18-20,000,000

Mr. Robert J. Vanni

GENERAL COUNSEL, NEW YORK PUBLIC LIBRARY

UNITED STATES

Opening Statement

Break-out Session on Archives and Books

The purpose of this session is to examine the complex issues

surrounding various types of assets seized, looted, plundered, captured

and confiscated during the Holocaust-era, and in particular, the matter of

archives and books. Being associated with one of the world's great

research libraries, it is an honor to be included on this session to make

some comments which, I hope, will serve as a departure point for

discussion, though I point out that the opinions I offer are strictly my

own.

For purposes of analysis, I would like to separate the materials

we are discussing into two main categories. The first is book and library

materials, seized, looted and confiscated during the Nazi era that

originated in national, local, private and other collections, which, due to

their great historical significance, rarity, value or uniqueness, can be

considered cultural objects or "collectibles." Such "collectibles" might

include antique or unique manuscripts, fine bindings and first editions.

The second category is records and archives of individuals, organizations

(religious, fraternal, charitable or commercial), and governmental or

quasi-governmental entities such as towns and municipalities. It is my

opinion that the first category of "collectibles", are more in the nature of

precious museum or art-type assets, and should be treated as such for the

purposes of restitution, repatriation and compensation. Further, much of

these precious materials have been carefully handled by their current

custodians, catalogued and preserved and to a degree are accessible for

study and research. It is the second category, more routine in nature, of

archives and records of individuals, organizations and governmental

entities that I would like to direct my comments. I would submit that for
772 WASHINGTON CONFERENCE ON HOLOCAUST-ERA ASSETS

the following reasons these materials are unique among the Holocaustera assets being discussed and hence should be dealt with differently.

Unlike other assets, they may have little intrinsic monetary value in

comparison to precious books and manuscripts, art, gold or bank

accounts. Their great value, however, lies in the information and

intellectual content preserved on their pages. It is this information that

gives witness to lives, communities and organizations that no longer

exist. It is this information that may perhaps offer the very proof needed

by those seeking restitution of all the other types of Holocaust-era assets.

And it is this information that will add to the history of each nation

represented here, since as a result of the war time diaspora, population

movements across national boundaries and continental divides, all our

national histories are revealed, in part, in these records and archives.

Archives and records are also unique and different from art and

cultural objects in that their value can be exploited separate and apart

from the original artifact or document through the use of what librarians

refer to as "surrogates", that is, research copies created by use of

xerography, microfilming techniques or newer technologies. The

original artifacts should, to the extent possible, be preserved, but the

minimum to be done is to capture for posterity the intellectual content

they contain. Let me also state at the very outset, that the great

artifactual, and associational value of the original documents must not be

lost sight of. In this regard there need be a two-pronged discussion as to

these materials. First, how to preserve and make accessible their

intellectual content; and second, once accomplished, where should the

original artifact reside. This second question is very much one for

diplomatic negotiation or private claims, since many countries and

organizations have legitimate claim to be custodians of artifactual

original materials, should restitution to their rightful owners not be

possible. It would be unjust and immoral to delay access to the

intellectual content of such material while solutions to the complex

questions of reparation and return of the original documents to rightful

claimants is completed.

Returning to the first question of preservation and access, I

would suggest there are three steps to be taken:

1. The troves of records and archives need to be identified and

catalogued, at least into broad categories, including location

and physical condition. Such information should be

integrated into existing catalogues, perhaps being made

accessible via the internet.
ARCHIVES, BOOKS AND HISTORICAL COMMISSIONS 773

2. A triage effort must be undertaken to identify those collections

of greatest research and historic value and/or at greatest risk

of physical deterioration, so as to establish a reasoned priority

order in which to expend limited resources available for

preservation and preparation.

3. A useable surrogate (using xerography, microfilming and

newer electronic technologies) needs to be created to both

preserve the intellectual content of such material and make it

broadly available for access by claimants, researchers and

scholars.

Though these three steps are a major task, already many nations have

commenced the work of cataloguing, preserving and making such

materials accessible over the past decades.

How then, might this work be organized and undertaken? As a

departure point for discussion, I would suggest the formation of an

international commission of interested governments, institutions and

organizations that would serve as a coordinator and liaison with existing

and to be established national efforts to:

a) Set standards for the cataloging and collection of information

on extant collections of historical Holocaust-era documents,

as well as the establishment of standardized protocols for

preservation techniques;

b) Upon the recommendation of scholars and specialists, assist in

the triage of those materials establishing which categories

should be acted upon first;

c) Coordinate and cooperate with and/or assist in establishing

national projects for the cataloguing, preservation and

accessibility of these materials;

d) Assist in raising funds in support of national projects, (which

might include government and international organization

grants, private sector donations or perhaps using a small

percentage of cash equivalent Holocaust-era assets that

cannot otherwise be restituted to their rightful owners).

e) Serve as a facilitator or forum for the consideration of where

the original artifacts, documents, records and archives might

best reside, and as a conduit for claims;

f) Assist in educating professionals in whose care these materials

reside, as well as informing researchers, scholars and

claimants of the availability of such materials, by making use,

among other things, of the internet and world wide web.
774 WASHINGTON CONFERENCE ON HOLOCAUST-ERA ASSETS

As for the establishment of country or locally-based projects for

cataloguing and preservation, grants can serve to equip preservation and

microfilming laboratories, assist in creation of electronic catalogues and

databases, train personnel and, to a limited extent, assist in meeting local

costs.

My fear is that unless swift action is taken in regard to the

preservation and accessibility of Holocaust-era records and archives,

those individuals and institutions seeking information upon which to

base claims will continue to be frustrated in their efforts, while the slow

fires of deteriorating acid based papers made worse by inadequate

environmental storage will result in the loss to the world forever, not

only of these unique original archives and records, but, more

significantly, the intellectual content and the national, organizational and

personal histories they contain.
Dr. Abby Smith

DIRECTOR OF PROGRAMS,

COUNCIL ON LIBRARY AND INFORMATION RESOURCES

UNITED STATES

Recovering the Past: How Books and

Archives Matter

Break-out Session on Archives and Books

It has often been said at this conference that the present attempt

to locate and restore Holocaust-era assets to their rightful owners or heirs

is not about money, but about memory. Be that as it may, it is certainly

about assets, about things that are of value to people, past and present,

things that mattered greatly to those who suffered and who perished, as

well as things of value for those who remember the dead today. If the

current endeavor is indeed about justice and not retribution, if it is about

memory and not money, then books and archives play special roles as

agents of justice in our efforts.

Books matter because few things are more dear in purchase than

knowledge. At the same time, few things are more freely shared than

books, because they are such efficient and civilized carriers of

knowledge. It is paradoxical that, in the context of this conference,

focusing as it is on artworks, insurance claims, and property disputes,

books and manuscripts appear to be cheap. True, most books have little

financial value -- rare books that are, in fact, of some monetary value are

treated as works of art, along with paintings, furniture, jewels, and other

objects prized by connoisseurs. Most books are not usually assigned this

value because they are not rare or unique, at least not books printed

within the last 150 years. Moreover, the contents of books are easily

replicated without substantial loss of value in most cases and, in fact, are

designed to be easily affordable, readily shared, and inexpensively

copied.
776 WASHINGTON CONFERENCE ON HOLOCAUST-ERA ASSETS

But beyond any value that a book might or might not have as an

aesthetic object, there are other, one might even say higher, levels of

value for the recorded word. How we approach the matter of the rightful

place and ownership of these words, and of the books and manuscripts

that contained them and that have been displaced, depredated, or

orphaned by the war, depends largely on why we value them.

THE PAST

There are essentially three ways in which print and manuscript

materials are of value in the context of the task at hand:

* As keys to the past: Books and manuscripts provide

information about the past that can unlock for us different types of

consciousness and cultural sensibility. The recorded words that are

valuable for the information that they contain -- cultural history and

memory found in newspapers, novels, journals -- are important sources

for understanding the way people lived and thought. Daily newspapers

from the Vilna ghetto in the 1930s that tell us what the community ate

and wore; socialist tracts that reveal how some political activists

understood the revolutions of Russia and how they conceived the ideal

relationship between state and individual; novels published in Tallinn

that bear witness to how the Estonian literary language evolved in the

inter-war period -- these constitute important sources for historians of

language, culture, music, art, politics, and so on. These sources are

important for the information they contain, and should be copied and

made available internationally, especially because they were often

printed on acidic paper now aged and fragile.

* As records of the past: Archival records, both official and

unofficial, can provide important evidence for locating relatives, lost

assets, and so forth, because they testify to the whereabouts of people

and things before, during, and after the war. Many of these records are

in government archives and repositories and should be made accessible

to researchers without restrictions and to the best of any given

repository’s ability to process and make available their records.

* As relics of the past: There are books and papers that are

important as objects themselves because of their associational value.

While they may not be valuable because of their intellectual content, nor

be particularly rare, they were once the personal property of someone.

This is, in my view, the only category of book in which the object itself

should be returned to legitimate claimants in order to achieve restitution.
ARCHIVES, BOOKS AND HISTORICAL COMMISSIONS 777

To the extent that books and manuscripts are valuable for the

information they contain, we need to distinguish between the ownership

of the physical objects themselves and access to the information that they

contain. One does not speak of possession of information the way one

does of, say, an art object. Is information per se property? Can it be

privately owned? This is a question of more than passing interest,

because the copyright regimes in effect in each nation represented here

today, designed to protect intellectual property at the same time they

promote its dissemination, are challenged by a new digital environment

in which ownership of and access to information are no longer

synonymous. There are well-established traditions in libraries and

archives of making information widely accessible, traditions that are

observed in the breach in totalitarian countries where information, like

intelligence, is considered to be the property of the state. There are no

countries here that espouse that ethic today. Ten years ago we could not

have said that, and ten years ago we could not have had such a colloquy.

It is important to note that we are not talking just about Jewish

materials. The Nazis were fighting an ideological war, and ideas were

the most powerful tools of engagement. There were certain ideas that

were considered, in and of themselves, to be pernicious. Books that were

written by Freemasons, by anti-fascist writers, by devotional and

patriotic writers in Catholic and Orthodox Slavic countries, by

homosexuals, socialists, communists, and other so-called degenerates –

these works were seized and disposed of, destroyed or hidden. And

those books and manuscripts that after the war came within the pale of

the Red Army were twice seized and repressed. All these books together

bear witness to the past. Those books that managed to survive after the

communities they belonged to were entirely wiped out, especially the

communities or individuals who were dissenters of conscience and who

left no heirs or relatives, should be located and restored so that their

reality can now become part of history as told in their own, now silent,

voices.

THE PRESENT

The important tasks for us today are identification, preservation,

and access. We must identify library and archival materials that are

missing, we must preserve those that we can, and we must make them

accessible to those who need to consult them. As I said, books of

associational value should, when possible, be returned to rightful
778 WASHINGTON CONFERENCE ON HOLOCAUST-ERA ASSETS

claimants in order to achieve restitution. Given the physical state of

much that remains, this is often a daunting challenge and demands major

expenditures of time and money.

For materials that contain valuable cultural information, copies

can be made and widely shared. Physical restitution may or may not be

desirable, but it is at times simply impractical. These items are often

severely damaged due to poor storage conditions and improper handling;

they are also frequently very fragile because they were printed on poorquality, high-acid paper. It is important to make these materials

accessible, even when we cannot preserve them, and preservation

microfilming is an efficient and relatively inexpensive way to maximize

universal access to remote and fragile resources. For those records that

are of value to current and future researchers trying to determine the fate

of people and their possessions, we must press for open access to

archives, a principle endorsed both by the International Council on

Archives (ICA) and the International Federation of Library Associations

and Institutions (IFLA).

For purposes of access, digital technology offers an unparalleled

opportunity to share not only databases of information about people,

places, and things, but also the historic documents themselves. I must

caution the enthusiastic, though, that digital conversion is very labor

intensive and expensive. It can range anywhere from $5 to $30 an

image, with yet more expense for creating all the access points that make

digital information retrievable. Access to digital materials depends upon

computer hardware and software, both of which are expensive and prone

to obsolescence. Materials scanned and made available in one file

format today may well be obsolete and unreadable 20 or 30 years hence.

We have not yet developed practical solutions to the problem posed by

the impermanence of digital information.

Given the expense of digital conversion, especially for archival

materials that may be infrequently consulted, we are better off putting

our limited resources into creating inventories of and finding aids to

collections. This route offers the best way to share information – by

making known that it exists and where it can be found.

Libraries and archives seldom, if ever, have enough funds to

provide the kind of services they want to. As the national archives in

America and the Netherlands know quite well, researchers gaining access

to Holocaust-era records represent a new constituency and added

workload. And in Eastern Europe, where many of the most valuable

materials are found, we are talking about libraries and archives that are

opening up to public use for the first time in our lives, at exactly the
ARCHIVES, BOOKS AND HISTORICAL COMMISSIONS 779

moment in history when they are losing – have already lost -- their core

funding. They are forced to close reading rooms because they cannot

pay utility bills, and more often than readers know, the small staff that

remain on the job to serve them are not merely underpaid. They are

often unpaid for months at a time.

Frankly, of the three actions that we must undertake now –

identification, preservation, and access -- the first is the by far the

hardest. It is not uncommon that libraries and archives, even those that

are well funded and staffed, do not know precisely what they have and

where it is. There may well be books and manuscripts that lie

unidentified in libraries and archives. Gaining control over those

backlogs involves physical processing of items that are often in

precarious states of preservation. To make those items accessible,

catalogers and archivists must grapple with name authority problems, the

use of multiple names for people and places in Eastern Europe.

Certainly some libraries that took possession of book collections that had

been confiscated received them with no record of their provenance and,

if they were not known to be rare or from an important collection, these

collections would have been broken up and shelved according to the

usual library scheme rather than kept together as a coherent collection.

To reassemble collections would involve physical examination of whole

library collections shelf by shelf, book by book.

THE FUTURE

Restitution as such is a troubling and difficult concept when it

comes to books. Who are the rightful heirs of the books in stranded in

book depots in such cities as Vilnius and Kaunus, books that belonged to

communities that have been effaced from the earth? To some extent,

books belong to anyone who cares about them, anyone who finds value

in them, anyone who uses them. Without readers, books lose their

meaning as well as their value. We all know that history is written by the

survivors, and we, as survivors, must take some responsibility for the

way that the history of the Holocaust era is written. All books and

manuscripts, claimed and unclaimed, are keys to the past, and I would

encourage all who seek to recover the truth about the past to declare their

interest in the fate of the information about the past that these resources

carry.

Dr. Shimon Samuels

DIRECTOR FOR INTERNATIONAL LIAISON,

THE SIMON WIESENTHAL CENTER, PARIS

Break-out Session on Archives and Books

I am grateful to Under Secretary Eizenstat for his invitation,

extended to me at last week’s Buenos Aires meeting of the CEANA

(Argentine Commission on Nazi Activities) of which we are both

members.

As Paris-based Director of the Simon Wiesenthal Center for both

Europe and Latin America, I have long focussed on the trans-Atlantic

triangulation of war criminals, gold, art and other assets, flowing from

Germany, through the Iberian Peninsula to the Southern Cone.

As this jigsaw required the Argentine Commission to have

access to Spanish and Portuguese archives, so too the porous borders

show the need for a regional approach to what are now called the

Mercosur countries. In this context, I have had meetings with

government and Central Bank officials in Brazil, Chile and Uruguay.

A massive lacuna has been the absence of access to the

Stroessner period archives in Paraguay. Last week, I met in Asuncion

with Foreign Minister Dido Florentin and the Paraguayan Central Bank

Director Dr. Jorge Schreiner, to propose an Argentine-style commission.

Our Center was requested to present models of national

commissions for Paraguay’s consideration, especially in view of a

current investigation by the Central Bank’s Controller into the 1989

disappearance of Argentine-origin gold ingots, allegedly bearing

Reichsbank markings.

Moreover, in Buenos Aires, I proposed to President Carlos

Menem, the establishment of a Mercosur-level commission, especially to

track the intra-regional traffic in assets through the Latin American

network of such Nazi banks as the Banco Aleman Transatlantico and the

Banco Germanico.

Menem charged Interior Minister Carlos Corach with discussing

this proposal with his Mercosur counterparts.

I believe that with the end of this conference a phase will be

closing, i.e. that of defining the problem through the work of the national

archival research commissions.
782 WASHINGTON CONFERENCE ON HOLOCAUST-ERA ASSETS

We now enter phase two – that of enforcing settlement, the

closure of commitments, the fulfillment of promises. In the spirit of the

Biblical injunction of Leviticus, Chapter 25, verse 10: “In the fiftieth

year...thou shalt restitute to each...his property...”

From my perspective in Paris, I wish to mention the following examples:

• An ironic paradox, in some cases, is that the creation of a

national archival commission has cut off access to formerly

available archives, e.g. the Bercy French Finance Ministry,

where I was able to research the Tripartite Gold Commission

reports, until these were closed for the use of the Matteoli

Commission.

• The Spanish Central Bank archives were open to me and

others until Lord Janner called for the creation of a Spanish

Commission. Henceforth, the researcher of the Argentine

CEANA has been denied access.

Other obstacles to transparency are:

• Delay in granting access to the Tripartite Gold Commission

archives recently moved to Paris.

• Refusal of the Portuguese Central Bank to permit research

on gold flow to Latin America and Asia.

• Access to the Austrian Finance Ministry archives relating to

pre-Anschluss bank accounts, especially of the State-owned

PSK.

• The opening by the Holy See of its World War Two-era

archives relating to Croatian-looted gold and other Holocaust

issues.

• Immediate implementation of restitution by the British

government of property and accounts confiscated from

“enemy aliens”, including thousands of Nazi victims. To

attempt archival reconstruction, the Simon Wiesenthal

Center posted a questionnaire on its Internet site to seek

potential claimants. We have since been mandated by some

130 account holders.

• The fulfillment of the promise to transfer several looted art

objects, currently in French State museums, to the newlyopened Paris Museum of Jewish Art and Tradition.

I am reminded of a bitter historical coincidence. In August

1944, with the Allies about to liberate Paris, the Resistance stopped a

train of looted art that was on its way to the German frontier. On the
ARCHIVES, BOOKS AND HISTORICAL COMMISSIONS 783

same day, the last train of deportees left Drancy for Auschwitz – it was

never stopped. Ars longa, vita brevis.

In conclusion, restitution is not charity, nor of concern

exclusively to Jewish claimants. The work here is a contribution to an

evolving jurisprudence on the war crime of looting. CNN’s financial

analyst, Myron Kandell, emphasized this during Kabila’s march on

Kinshasa, when he said, “It took a Holocaust bank scandal to open

We are also refining an expanding moral pedagogy on human

rights with significance for the treatment of refugees, the professional

responsibility of insurance companies towards beneficiaries, an exercise

in prudence for art dealers and museum curators, and a reminder of

client-first good practice for the banking industry. Above all, exposure

of the truth lances a long-festering boil, allowing the pus to drain. The

cleansing of this wound can be an act of catharsis for the collaborator,

added armament against Holocaust denial and a final accounting for the

victim – both Jewish and Gentile – and for their heirs.

Thank you.

Prof. Peter W. Klein

SECRETARY OF THE SCHOLTEN COMMISSION

THE NETHERLANDS

Report on Dutch Historical Research on

Financial Restitution for War Victims

Break-out Session on the role of Historical Commissions

Let me say first that the following short survey of Dutch

committees engaged in research on restitution for Dutch war victims will

be as factual as possible. I will try to avoid any value judgements. Of

course this in no way implies that there are no moral issues at stake. The

organized, systematic persecution and robbery, by the German national

socialist civil authorities, to which the Netherlands, and its Jewish

population of 135,000 in particular, were subjected, was, of course,

absolutely reprehensible from a moral point of view. Contrary to the

pretence of the German occupying forces it was, moreover, completely

criminal and illegal. The small and rather helpless Dutch nation of about

ten million people, that for more than a century had taken great pride in

its pacifist principles of neutrality, was in no way prepared to cope with

the national socialist reign of terror - either mentally or physically. Its

reaction was not unambiguous. It consisted partly of passive, unheroic

accommodation and partly of active and courageous resistance. It also

took the form of collaboration with the enemy, either indirectly and

unwillingly, or directly and with full intent. The variety of reactions of

course also raises many moral issues, but they are not the subject of this

report.

The Dutch government in exile in London carried on fighting the

war, in particular at sea, where the substantial Dutch merchant navy

succeeded in contributing significantly to the Allied success. While

contending with serious shortages of qualified manpower, the
786 WASHINGTON CONFERENCE ON HOLOCAUST-ERA ASSETS

government also took the legal steps required to undo the harm done at

home as far as possible.

Repairing the war damage and reconstructing postwar Dutch

society was naturally one of the major issues concerning the Dutch

government in exile. The preparation of emergency legislation for the

restitution of Dutch Nazi war victims' legal rights had begun as early as

June 1940, one month after the occupation. Drawn up meticulously by

one of the most distinguished representatives of the Dutch legal

profession, this extensive and extremely complicated legislation was not

completed until 17th September 1944, on the very day Allied

paratroopers landed a bridge too far in the Netherlands, and lost the

Battle of Arnhem.

At the time nobody could have predicted that the fighting in the

Netherlands would rage on for yet another 8 months, throughout the

terrible, bitter winter of 1944 - 1945. Nobody could have predicted that

at the end of the war the most damaged economy in Western Europe

would be that of the Netherlands. The extent of the damage is

comparable only with the destruction of the most heavily hit

industrialized areas of Germany itself. Nobody could have predicted that

the liberation would not be followed immediately by the restoration of

the traditionally tolerant Dutch regime of parliamentary democracy.

Instead, the government retained its military status until well after the

war. Nobody could have foreseen the absolutely overwhelming number

of complex problems, some new and some extremely urgent, confronting

postwar Dutch society. They included purging society of traitors and

collaborators; restoring public health, which had suffered badly;

guaranteeing a food supply; repairing war damage; reconstructing the

economy; bringing order to chaotic public finances; reviewing traditional

foreign policies; coping with the decolonization of the Dutch East Indies,

and so on.

There was also of course the problem of rehabilitating war

victims. Amidst all these worries few Dutchmen realized that in the end

only about 5,000 of their Jewish fellow countrymen were to return from

the death camps. Let me repeat: only 5,000 of the 107,000 who were

deported ever returned. Who could have realized it then? Who can even

now? Half a century after the war, Dutch society - now prosperous and

content - has been confronted almost out of the blue by a terrible

question: is it possible that the state, insurance companies, banks and

other sectors of the Dutch business community systematically profited -

illegally or improperly - from large-scale looting, amounting to an
ARCHIVES, BOOKS AND HISTORICAL COMMISSIONS 787

unknown and now undoubtedly large sum of money? The next question

is, of course: if this is the case, what can we do about it?

The Dutch tribe, being Dutch, followed its tried and tested,

traditional way of doing things - particularly where there is something to

be investigated. It sets up committees - not just one, but preferably as

many as possible, each recruited from its own specific sector of society

and well-stocked with professional expertise. Apart from the separate

ministerial committee of five or six members, headed by the prime

minister himself, and instructed by the Dutch government to supervise

and coordinate the research, there are now another five committees. Each

of them works according to its own rules, methods and research

techniques, and each has its own job description and its own perspective.

There are also of course a number of sub-committees, each with its own

job description and perspective. Needless to say, there is some overlap

and duplication. It would appear that we have major coordination

problems and that efficiency is suffering somewhat. But the advantage of

this rather cumbersome approach is evident: the chance that anything

will be overlooked is less than minimal.

The first committee to be appointed by the Minister of Finance

was intended to monitor international research in order to learn from it.

Headed by an eminent representative of the body politic, it consists of

distinguished civil servants, members of the business community,

scholars, lawyers, economists and persons who have close relations with

the Dutch Jewish community. It has also instigated academic research

into the matter of looting and restitution, and the financial and

demographic background. Its report is expected in the middle of next

year. This committee established a second committee, headed by the

former vice president of the Council of State, to guide independent and

autonomous academic research on financial restitution. It first of all

focused on the controversial matter of dormant accounts with banks and

insurance companies. The research was soon extended, however, to

include other financial assets such as shares and securities, social

insurance, patents, royalties, copyrights, mortgages and so on. The

research is being carried out by historians, lawyers and economists under

my direction. The committee will publish its first report on 16th

December. It will publish its final report in the spring of next year. A

third committee, headed by the former Auditor General, concerns itself

mainly with the problem of restitution of material property. Its final

report will be published on 9th December. Each of the three committees

will present its results to the Minister of Finance. This is not the case

with the committee established to trace works of art looted by the
788 WASHINGTON CONFERENCE ON HOLOCAUST-ERA ASSETS

Germans. When the time comes it will report its findings to the Minister

of Education, Culture and Science. A separate committee has been set up

by the Minister of Health, Welfare and Sport. It is looking into the matter

of financial damages in the Far East resulting from unlawful Japanese

war activities. It has already published its first report showing that there

is no evidence of such activities. The committee will continue its

research until the end of next year.

Leiden, 26th November 1998
Ambassador Krister Wahlbäck

SWEDISH FOREIGN MINISTRY

AND MEMBER OF THE SWEDISH COMMISSION ON JEWISH ASSETS

SWEDEN

Break-out Session on the Role of Historical Commissions

Madam Chairman,

Before I left Stockholm for Washington, I was told that our

American hosts wanted me to address at this session problems with

regard to source material faced by the Swedish Commission on Jewish

Assets. Thus the focus of my presentation will be a bit different than that

of some of the previous speakers.

I am not going to discuss the results or the conclusions of the

Swedish Commission except to say that we are not empowered to

investigate or pass judgement on Sweden's foreign and trade policies in

general during the war. Our terms of reference as laid down by the

Government are not remotely as wide in their scope as those given to

Commissions in some other countries, for instance the Bergier

Commission in Switzerland. The task assigned to us is a fairly precise

one: to establish to what extent Jewish property, in whatever form, came

into Swedish hands as a result of Nazi persecution.

In fact, even this limited task is quite extensive and complicated,

considering that we are looking for transactions which took place more

than fifty years ago, and that we want to identify all kinds of

transactions, whether they concern arts and antiques, bank accounts and

safe deposits, patents and licenses, shares and looted gold. However, the

Government has decided that our final report should be presented before

the end of February 1999, i.e. after less than two years' work.

Now, which are the difficulties with regard to source material

that we have run into? First, access has not been a problem. With regard

to official record in public authorities, they are in principle always

available even to ordinary citizens in Sweden, according to a

constitutional law which has been in force for more than two hundred

years. There are some exceptions, however, one of them covering

documents dealing with Sweden's relations to foreign powers during the

last forty years. But this, of course, does not now apply to any documents

relevant to our investigations.
790 WASHINGTON CONFERENCE ON HOLOCAUST-ERA ASSETS

As for the records of our security services, restrictions apply for

reasons of safeguarding the personal integrity of people under

surveillance. While the Commission's access to these records has not

been restricted, we have had to deal carefully, in a somewhat timeconsuming way, with a lot of quite interesting documents about illegal

German business-related activities in Sweden.

Concerning private archives, or documents in the possession of

individual political or business leaders and their families, they are of

course private, i.e. researchers depend upon the good will of their

keepers to be granted access. However, while the Commission has not

been given any special investigative powers by legislation, we have

never been denied access to the records of banks, companies or private

persons that we have approached. On the contrary, in most cases we have

encountered a quite helpful attitude. This applies not least to the

Wallenberg bank, Stockholms Enskilda Bank, which has by far the best

kept records of any Swedish bank, dating all the way back to 1856. Of

course, these cooperative attitudes are not unrelated to the Commission's

official status, and I would certainly not wish to give you the impression

that they can be taken for granted when other researchers come knocking

on the door.

If access has not been a problem, paucity or scantiness certainly

have. It is a regrettable fact that traditionally, in the Swedish political and

administrative system, only formal minutes are kept of discussions

preceding decisions. This is true even for cabinet meetings. The formal

sessions with the King on Friday morning were meticulously

documented, but not the real, informal debates in the course of the

preceding week. These may be recorded in the private diaries kept by

five or six cabinet members; but as issues concerning gold transactions

or other possible transferal of Jewish property were not considered high

politics, very little of interest to us has been found in these diaries.

The Foreign Ministry, which handled all foreign trade matters,

was a quite small outfit in the 1940's. Most decisions were taken by

informal consultation among half a dozen of top officials, with no

records whatsoever. Further, we have got nothing comparable to the

British tradition at this time of circulating important documents inside a

folded four-sided sheet of foolscap on which different layers of the

hierarchy could scribble their comments, and even remark upon previous

comments by their colleagues. Thus, the reasoning of the Foreign

Ministry and the Government often has to be inferred from decisions,

unfortunately in a somewhat speculative way.
ARCHIVES, BOOKS AND HISTORICAL COMMISSIONS 791

Happily, the culture was a bit different in the Bank of Sweden.

Fairly good records were kept at their Board meetings, and above all, the

President of the Bank in the 1929-1948 period, Mr. Ivar Rooth, was a

painstaking diarist, or perhaps I should say compulsive diarist. Not at all

in the sense of registering his private life or private thoughts. But he

always kept a pen in hand when receiving visitors or taking phone calls,

and he was exceptionally able in jotting down what was said in a legible

handwriting. These daily notes, thousands of pages each year, have been

a most important source to us. And they are now of course freely

available to any serious researcher.

Paucity of source material may occur not only by poor notetaking at decision-making gatherings, but also by records being

destroyed, or weeded out because of their presumed routine nature. As

for official records, this is a rigorously regulated process, but in one or

two instances it has in fact happened that investigations contemplated by

us, involving very extensive perusal of records covering routine

transactions, have proved impossible to carry out because of such

weeding many years ago.

In the private and business sector, this problem is much worse. It

is costly to keep and maintain archives, and there are no legal obligations

in Sweden for private companies or banks to safeguard records more

than ten years old. And unfortunately, few of them do. It is primarily in

companies run by the same family for a long time that a sense of history

may emerge. Again, the Wallenberg bank is the prime example. As I

said, the Commission has full access to their archives, including the

private correspondence of the two brothers who were running the bank at

the time, Jacob and Marcus. Marcus Wallenberg's private diary, which he

kept in the 1938-43 years and to which no researcher has been granted

access before, is available to the Commission as well.

Madam Chairman,

As indicated at the outset, I have not told you anything at all

about the results or conclusions of the Commission. We are right now in

the process of drafting these parts of the Commission's Report, which is

scheduled for publication in early March 1999. An Interim Report,

covering only the gold transactions of the Bank of Sweden with Nazi

Germany, was published in July 1998 and is now available in English

translation.

Ambassador Sevinc Dalyanoglu

GENERAL DIRECTOR FOR MULTILATERAL ECONOMIC AFFAIRS,

MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

TURKEY

Notes on Archival Research Undertaken

by the Turkish Commission to Determine

the Actual Position of Turkey Before,

During and After the Second World War

Break-out Session on the Role of Historical Commissions

At the very outset, we did not expect to be involved in this issue

at all. We had been surprised when we learned that we would be

involved, but we are used to being surprised and therefore we reacted

swiftly by forming a Commission under the leadership of a Minister of

State, compromising three scholars, two ambassadors, two Deputy

Directors-General, two representatives of the Turkish Jewish community,

and the necessary staff, and moved on to work.

Following the publication of the first report by the US State

Department in May 1997 on the subject of "Nazi gold", The Turkish

Commissions Response, reflected in several papers, has been included in

the "Nazi Gold Report Of The London Conference" published by the

British Foreign And Commonwealth Office in 1998.

In the papers presented by Turkey to the London Conference

Secretariat, either copy of related Turkish and foreign documents and of

the relevant paragraphs of historical books and memoirs have been

annexed or referred to in the footnotes. In addition, bibliographies and

further reading lists have been added to these papers, when and where

deemed useful for the interested reader.

As for the Turkish Research concerning the second report

published by the State Department in June 1998, two press statements

expressing Turkey’s initial reactions were issued in that very same month
794 WASHINGTON CONFERENCE ON HOLOCAUST-ERA ASSETS

by the head of commission, Minister of State Professor Sukru Gurel.

Relevant Turkish documents were attached to these two press statements

as annexes. Foreign documents on the same subjects were later submitted

to Dr. William Slany, the Historian of the U.S. State Department, during

his visit to Ankara in November 1998.

For such encompassing research on several topics of 50 and 60

years ago, some of which persisted until the late 1950s, our main

objective was to be as scholarly and objective in our endeavors and to

compile data from as many different sources as possible. Naturally books

on history and memoirs of prominent political figures such as Roosevelt,

Churchill and Inonu were of foremost importance as starting points of

our research. References and footnotes in those books helped us locate

other archival sources such as articles published in Turkish newspapers

55 years ago or the texts of the laws adopted by and speeches delivered

the Grand National Assembly Of The Republic Of Turkey on the

chromium issue. Our point of departure for this subject was Edward

Weisband's book entitled "Turkish Foreign Policy (1943-1945)."

The archives of The Turkish Central Bank and The Ministry of

foreign affairs were complementing each other especially on the gold

issue. The Turkish Central Bank, which is well known for the perfection

and the impeccability of its archives, provided the commission with all

the documentation needed to finalize the research. The Archives and

records on gold transactions of the Central Bank of Turkey are open and

accessible to all interested parties for research. However, nobody had

previously asked to look into them. We were happy to brief Dr. Slany on

the Gold Transactions of the bank from 1934 to 1952 during his visit to

Turkey in November 1998. Copies of all the related documents and

records were handed to him. Laborious research carried out in the

archives of the Ministry Of Foreign Affairs of Turkey yielded fruitful

results as well, although the ministry moved to another location some ten

years ago and its archives reminded in its former building for the

preliminary archival research, a retired ambassador, who has served in

the past as the Deputy Director General for the ministry's Archival and

Communication Department, was commissioned for this task. After a

month of through research, his file contained not only the necessary

Turkish documents but also some allied notes, which were not present

even in the first report of May 1997.

For prospective researchers, it became easier to find the

documents in the ministry's archives as the pathways led us to explore

other related matters. At a later stage documents compiled as the

outcome of the dedicated archival research effort by Turkish missions
ARCHIVES, BOOKS AND HISTORICAL COMMISSIONS 795

abroad, primarily the Turkish Embassies in Paris and London as well as

the Turkish Consulates in Paris, Marseilles and Rhodes, were brought in

and utilized as further sources in the commission’s historical work.

These endeavors subsequently led us to another source that is, the

International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) In Geneva. A Turkish

Diplomat who was assigned the task of conducting research in the

archives of the ICRC returned with a huge pile of documents testifying to

Turkey's role in saving thousands of Jews fleeing from the Nazi

persecution in severs European countries during the last year of the war.

As to the documents -- or three thick files-- we received from our

Embassy in Paris we were happy to find out that every single document

concerning the protection of the properties of the Turkish Jewish Citizens

was kept in the archives of the Turkish Embassy in Paris. As a matter of

fact, these documents were explored upon the advice of retired

Ambassador Mr. Name Yolga, who is one of the more than twenty

Turkish Diplomats Personally saved many Jews and their properties

during the war. Unfortunately, besides Ambassador Yolga, only two

others of those diplomatic are still alive.

As stated above the primary goal and principle in our research

was to be as objective and honest as possible so as to confront our history

with a clean conscience, without prejudice.

As the founding father of our Republic, Ataturk said very wisely:

"it is more difficult to write history than to make history."

Therefore, at the outset of our studies we decided to play the

"devils advocate" against us and started with two books, which directly

targeted Turkey. These two books, entitled "Methoden Der DeutschFaschistischen Propagandataetigkeit in Der Turkei Vor Und Waehrend

Des Zweiten Weltkrieges" and "Turkei Im DeutschAngloamerikanischen Spannungsfeld," and published in 1966 and 1968

respectively, were written by a citizen of the former German Democratic

Republic, Mr. Johannes Glasneck.

Although these two books tried to dissect Turkey’s position

more harshly than the two recent reports of the U.S. State Department,

they summarized Turkey's actual position from the mouth of the late

American President, Franklin D. Roosevelt who evaluated Turkey’s

position more accurately and positively than Winston Churchill.

President Roosevelt's son, Elliott Roosevelt has drawn the most

appropriate picture of history from his father’s perspective in his book,

"as he saw it." To find a copy of this book, we had to refer to the Library

of Congress, as original copies of it were no longer available, except for
796 WASHINGTON CONFERENCE ON HOLOCAUST-ERA ASSETS

the Turkish translation of the book, which we readily found at the

Library of the Turkish War Academies.

The Book, "As He Saw It," was later complemented by other

American and British books and documents the official documents of the

State Department concerning the Second World War, particularly those

relating to the Cairo Conference, were easy to find at the Library of the

Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The Footnotes in Mr. Stanford Shaw's book "Turkey and the

Holocaust," Copies of which have been distributed to the valuable

participants of this conference, also gave us some clues in discovering

more facts on the Turkish role in saving the Jews from Nazi persecution

throughout the European Continent, as documented in the American

Archives.

For the documents of other countries, we are grateful to the

Polish Embassy in Ankara, which furnished US with their documents on

the 70 tons of Polish Gold that Turkey saved during the first month of the

war in September 1939. We are also obliged to Ms. Bennett of the

British archives for the British documents to complement ours on the

chromium issue. However, we are still expecting the documents from our

German Colleagues on the Gratis Return of the German assets in Turkey

during the late 1950s. When we recall the remarks of the distinguished

German delegate at the London Conference last year about the opening

of the Turkish archives, we are now pleased that we have responded to

his wish positively we think that it is now our turn to ask the same from

our German colleagues.
Dr. Ignacio Klich

ACADEMIC COORDINATOR

COMMISSION OF ENQUIRY INTO THE ACTIVITIES OF NAZISM IN

ARGENTINA (CEANA)

ARGENTINA

Argentine Documents on the Nazi Era

Break-out Session on Historical Commissions

No inventory of Argentine sources on the country’s performance

during the Nazi era can ignore the fact that the culture of secrecy has

long been prevalent here. This, and the low priority ascribed to archives

and their organization, have conspired against historical research.

Unsurprisingly, Argentina’s diplomatic history of the period under

consideration only began to be the subject of detailed academic research

as U.S. and British papers entered the public domain in the 1970s, with

some Argentine records only growing increasingly accessible since the

latter years of the military regime that ruled the country until 1983.

Such access had little to do with decreed policy. As is the case in

other Latin American and European countries, official documents were

meant to be declassified half a century after the events. In practice,

though, various institutions have shied away from the release of papers

fifty years later, while the authorities of others have shown themselves

informally prepared to lift such a restriction earlier. Against the

background of such discretionary powers, Buenos Aires University Press

(Eudeba) published the first annotated collection of documents on

Argentina during World War II in 1988, including, among others, a host

of Argentine papers post-1938.1

Since the 1980s, the study of the subject has been facilitated by

three quantum leaps in access to Argentine documents. The first took

place in 1992 when the then interior minister announced that he was

 

1

 Mario Rapoport, comp., ¿Allados o neutrales? (Buenos Aires, 1988).
798 WASHINGTON CONFERENCE ON HOLOCAUST-ERA ASSETS

opening the so-called Nazi archives. While Argentina has no Nazi

archives as such, only materials on various aspects of the country’s

record during the Nazi era scattered throughout a host of repositories, the

announcement resulted in the release into the public domain of some ten

Federal Police files on a number of Nazi war criminals. Disappointing as

these were to historians and other interested parties because of their

number and the large proportion of press cuttings in such files, their

release set in train developments that since then have steadily increased

the body of available Argentine documents.

The second quantum leap occurred during 1993-96, when

records became generally easier to consult. Access to diplomatic

documents at the Foreign Ministry Archive (AMRECIC) was facilitated

in 1993. All bars were removed to studying judiciary papers on the

extradition of Nazi war criminals, thereby allowing researchers to access

documents regardless of the date when such extradition requested were

lodged or of their result. A useful selection of these has now seen the

light of day as part of a documentary project sponsored by Argentina’s

Jewish representative body (DAIA).2 In line with its housing of

presidential papers, the National Archives (AGN) received records of

Juan Perón’s presidency, in particular those of his Ministry of Technical

Affairs, which shed light on the role played by the presidential

information secretariat in the arrival in the country of former Third Reich

scientists, technicians and other so-called useful Europeans. By 1996, the

Central Bank (BCRA) released documents on gold transactions with

neutral and other countries during the Nazi era and early postwar period.

The third leap dates back to 1997 and was initiated by

researchers working for the Commission of Enquiry into the Activities of

Nazism in Argentina (CEANA), created that year. CEANA’s wideranging research agenda has three major aims: (i) reaching an informed

estimate of the number of Nazi war criminals that settled in Argentina

and analyzing the conditions that made this influx possible; (ii)

determining whether Nazi loot may have been stashed away in Argentina

or used the country as a transit point; (iii) assessing Nazism’s impact on

Argentine society, government and culture. Included among the records

consulted by CEANA that were not previously seen by others are

diplomatic papers that for one or another reason have not been

transferred hitherto to AMRECIC by Argentine embassies and

 

2

 Paul Warszawski, comp., Respuesta del Estado argentino ante los pedidos de

extradición de criminales de guerra y reos del delito contra la humanidad bajo

el III Reich (Buenos Aires, 1998).
ARCHIVES, BOOKS AND HISTORICAL COMMISSIONS 799

consulates; papers belonging to the various branches of the military, in

particular those pertaining to army and air force personnel on the one

hand, and to naval operations on the other hand; papers of the Directorate

of Military Industries (DGFM), nowadays under the aegis of the

Economy Ministry; Federal Police files on Argentine identity documents

sought by German and other newcomers (these accessed via the Ministry

of Interior); other Central Bank records; Ministry of Justice papers of the

vice presidential commission that investigated Perón administration

irregularities.

In summary, the corpus of Argentine papers bearing on the Nazi

era and early postwar period is no longer one that would impel

researchers to study one or another aspect of the country’s performance

on the sole basis of non-Argentine papers. This said, there are limitations

to what can be gained from these important documentary sources, some

such hurdles making it all the more necessary to exchanging information

with researcher for CEANA and other commissions at foreign

repositories. Moreover, there are still Argentine papers to be seen: to

name but three groups that have been requested by CEANA, there are

papers of Argentina’s Ministry of Defense, intelligence secretariat

(SIDE) and provincial police forces.

By the end of 1999 a CEANA final report is expected. Among

other things, this will include a detailed inventory of Argentine and other

records consulted by each of the 23 research units that have been

launched so far. For the time being, three interim CEANA reports have

been issued; these can be seen at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum,

as well as on the Internet at www.ceana.org.ar. In this way, CEANA

hopes to play its part in Argentina’s lengthy transition from a culture of

secrecy to one of greater transparency, a transition that should hopefully

make possible other self-introspective exercises such as that in which

CEANA has been involved.