In his preface to his autobiographical book, "The Holocaust is over, We
must Rise from Its Ashes", Avraham Burg, former speaker of the Knesset,
writes that the first reactions to his book ranged from loving and
accepting to 'angry, assailing and aggressive'. One reaction from an
elderly Israeli man was especially telling, he recounts:
"Burg, I am very angry with you!" [the elderly Israeli man tells him]
"Why?" I asked. "Because of what you wrote." "And what did I write?"
"You wrote against the Holocaust!" "And you?" I wondered aloud, "Would
you write in support of the Holocaust?" Our exchange ended in
silence.[1]
This short anecdote tells it all. It speaks about memory, trauma, and
history; it talks of historical investigation, of inter-generational
conflicts and coming to terms with the past. The exchange between the
elderly gentleman and Avraham Burg ended in silence. For me, as a
scholar working on the concept of historical silence, this is the point
when all of it made sense. Silence is not when all conversation stops.
It is when we cannot find the right vocabulary or words to describe what
we wanted to say; it is when we have too many or too few stories to make
sense of it all; it is when we start remembering.
Among all the questions coming to us from the past, many will never be
answered. Many stories of victimhood will never be told; many rescuers
never mentioned, many perpetrators never called to justice.
At the international colloquium "Bystander, Rescuer or Perpetrators? The
Neutral Countries and the Shoah", a major attempt was made to tell these
forgotten stories and to compare the stories we found; to identify the
rescuers, bystanders and perpetrators; to call into question public
debates and historical myths; and finally to present and find ways to
overcome the challenges of Holocaust remembrance and education. As its
title suggests, this was done with a focus on the neutral countries -
among them Turkey, Sweden, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland and Argentina.
In the three-day colloquium, hosted by Centro Sefardo more than 30
scholars and experts from (or writing on) these countries came together
and discussed these issues in a comparative framework. The common
consensus was - as Chaim Weitzman already predicted at the Evian
Conference in 1938 - that the neutral countries could be divided into
two groups: those that expelled their refugees and those that refused to
let them in. This, so SUSANNE HEIM (München) argued in her keynote
lecture, brought about "a radical change in the international order" in
terms of immigration laws and minority protection. By excluding the Jews
from the German Volksgemeinschaft, Nazi Germany not only forced the
other states to accept its redefinition of citizenship defining Jews as
inferior and having fewer rights, but also to eventually adopt
authoritarian policies concerning the incoming Jewish refugees
themselves.
The first three panels set the historical stage for vibrant and
passionate discussions throughout the remaining time of the colloquium.
These panels discussed policies towards Jewish Refugees before WWII
(1933-1939) and during WWII (1939-1945) in countries such as
Switzerland, Sweden, Turkey, Portugal and Spain, and reactions to the
German ultimatum on the repatriation of Jews. Main pillars for these
discussions were the self-perceptions of these countries (did they
perceive themselves as transit countries or host countries?), the legal
frameworks of existing or later-implemented immigration laws (were
immigration laws newly implemented in these countries upon the arrival
of the Jewish refugees? How did existing laws change over time?), and
the survival chances of incoming Jewish refugees (in terms of employment
and social acceptance into existing communities).
From the presentation of SALOMÉ LIENERT (Basel) and RUTH
FIVAZ-SILBERMANN (Geneva) we learned, for example, that Switzerland was
following a strict Abwehrpolitik towards its Jewish refugees in the
1930s that refugees were not allowed to work or travel within
Switzerland and that local Jewish communities were asked to sustain the
arriving Jews. In Sweden, on the other hand, Jewish refugees from Nazi
Germany were welcomed as long as they could prove that they had Swedish
relatives, but it was still very difficult for them to obtain work
permits, particularly because local labour associations feared
competition. Nevertheless, so PONTUS RUDBERG (Upsalla) pointed out,
local Jewish initiatives were successful in implementing an agricultural
and educational program for Jewish youth, and lobbied for more flexible
immigration laws in Sweden and the rest of Europe.
Turkey, often portrayed as a safe haven for Jewish refugees, followed a
somewhat contradictory policy towards its Jewish refugees. While Jewish
professors and experts were invited and immediately furnished with
five-year contracts to work at Turkey's new secular universities or to
help with Turkey's first economic plan, CORRY GUTTSTADT (Jerusalem)
argued, Turkish Jews in Europe were writing appeals to be repatriated to
Turkey (and thus be saved from a future in Nazi concentration camps) to
little or no avail.
Spain and Portugal, like Turkey, are remembered in their respective
national collective memories as rescuer countries. Undoubtedly, Spain
and Portugal played an important role in transiting European Jews;
careful historical analysis, however, reveals that there is another,
much darker, side to the story. In striking parallel to Turkey, Spain
and Portugal were reluctant to save their "own" national Jews. BERND
ROTHER (Berlin) informed us that Spain, for example, repatriated (and
thus saved) only 800 out of 3,400 Jews. Portugal, because of its
economic, financial and commercial interdependence (which continued
until 1944) was also a very reluctant saviour, as IRENE PIMENTEL
(Lisbon) pointed out. We know of only 137 Jews that were living in
France at the time of the ultimatum and arrived in Portugal safely. In
Turkey, IZZET BAHAR (Pittsburgh) concurred, there was a similar
reluctant attitude towards its Jews in Europe with a major difference
regarding those who were, and were not, considered Turkish citizens.
The last two panels dealt with (1) the politics of rescue myths, public
debates and historical investigations; and (2) the overt challenges of
Holocaust remembrance and education in the neutral countries.
In the case of Sweden, so KARIN KVIST (Upsalla), for example, the rescue
myth became the master narrative about Sweden during the Holocaust. This
master narrative was only challenged in the 1970s when scholars like
Paul Levine, who was also present at the colloquium, started researching
the topic in depth and outlined a critical historiography. ANNA MENNY
(Hamburg), argued that this gap between collective memory and
historiography is also evident in Portugal, where historiography is
still lagging behind in rectifying certain myths in the public
perception of Salazar, Portugal and the Holocaust.
Sometimes only the active engagement of historians or scholars working
on such topics through, for example, the practice of public history, can
close the aforementioned gulf between collective memory and historical
scholarship. One such example is UKI GOÑI's (Buenos Aires) work in
Argentina. His publication of a secret directive of 1938 prohibiting
Argentine diplomats from issuing visas to Jews fleeing from Nazi Germany
was followed by the first official Argentine government admission of its
anti-Semitic immigration polices during and after WWII.
What was missing in this panel was a wider conceptual framework, which
could easily have been borrowed from memory studies. In memory studies,
conflicting historical narratives or competing memories are mostly dealt
with in the field of memory politics. But what lies at the heart of
these memory politics? For Maurice Halbwachs, for example, the link
between social and collective memory is very problematic and often
entails a negotiation between individual and collective memory practices
and politics - sadly, so he argues, this is a battle from which the
individual seldom emerges victorious.[2] It is then exactly this
uncomfortable gulf between the individual and the collective, for Paul
Ricoeur, that is so apparent in historical schoolbooks and education -
and often climaxes in textbook controversies.[3] The apparent cues from
just a short glance into the field of memory studies are: collective
memory is very much tied and connected to national identity and
therefore difficult to challenge; history education is were these
battles are mostly fought out; and, finally, archives and (and more
often nationalist) historiographical traditions are very much the
informants of a nation's perception of the past as disseminated by
school books. For memory studies, then, history education in schools
becomes not only the carrier of certain historical truths but also the
possible vehicle for change.
This was also the consensus found in the last panel, which dealt with
the challenges of Holocaust education in the neutral countries. In Spain
as in Switzerland the long-lasting myths of rescuer countries, as ANNA
MENNY (Hamburg) and MONIQUE ECKMANN (Geneva) respectively suggested,
have to be dealt with by educators who also have to address the changing
perceptions of the past. While this is a difficult task for the
educators, and often only possible, as seen from the perspective of
Spain, through the creation of non-formal educational initiatives, it is
also a rewarding path to take for the sake of a new teaching of history,
MARTA SIMÓ (Barcelona) argued. The "ambiguity of the perception of the
past", these "grey zones", in Monique Eckmann's words, are important
learning touchstones for students on their path towards being active and
critically-minded citizens of their own countries and of the world. In
the case of Turkey, we learned - from the presentation of PINAR
DOST-NIYEGO (Istanbul) - that while the Holocaust is taught in schools
and non-formal educational programmes, it is done without Turkey "facing
its own past" of discriminating against its own Jews and other
minorities, and it is very much also connected to the state's attitude
towards Israel and Zionism.
The colloquium ended with a final round-table discussion, where experts
and representatives of individual countries reflected on the state of
the art in their countries and how new questions and points were raised
through comparison with the other neutral countries. For a successful
comparison among the very different countries, BERND ROTHER (Berlin)
proposed a series of "state of" questions. Questions could include: (1)
the influence of religion; (2) national sovereignty; (3) perceptions of
the probable outcome of the war and shifts in these perceptions; and (4)
economic interdependence and strategic considerations.
Except for the above-mentioned keynote lecture by SUSANNE HEIM (München)
and the ever-so provocative YEHUDA BAUER (Jerusalem), who urged the
colloquium's participants to "cut through the verbage" and simplify
discussions by using and challenging already existing concepts rather
than finding new terms and concepts, the colloquium brought no new
insights or groundbreaking theories to the table of genocide studies.
However, for a first in a planned series of colloquia, this was more
than understandable and maybe also for the best. The real merit of the
colloquium was bringing together scholars at different stages of their
careers, and from previously neglected countries, like Turkey, to engage
in an interdisciplinary comparative transnational framework.
I have rarely been to a conference, or colloquium, where the audience
was more engaged and involved in the discussions and academic debates
than in Madrid. This speaks for the clarity and engaging manner in which
the presentations were held and also for the importance and relevance of
the topics presented. Many questions and discussions naturally revolved
around anti-Semitic policies during the Holocaust and how they
translated into our present; and remain there, sometimes hidden,
sometimes not so hidden, as the case of Turkey very recently has shown
and BÜLENT BILMEZ (Istanbul) reminded us. Still, 'the ivory tower' of
academia - the drift between scholarship and reality - was too visible
to ignore on another topic. It is hard to understand how when talking
about the Jewish refugee crisis none of the speakers drew a parallel
with what is happening in our world today.
Immortalized as a rupture in the continuum of not only Jewish but also
world history and exalted to exemplary singularity, Holocaust memory,
today more than ever, serves as a backdrop to and lesson for all aspects
of life. This, however, has not made writing and teaching about the
Holocaust any easier; many would say it has made it even harder. A
burning question for today is whether teaching and writing about the
Holocaust really makes the world a better place. 'Never again' is being
mocked on a daily basis, and I believe that we need to be acutely aware
of this - especially as educators.
Conference Overview:
Welcome and Opening
Andrew Burns (UK Envoy for Post-Holocaust Issues, International
Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, IHRA)
Keynote lecture
Susanne Heim (Institut für Zeitgeschichte, München), The Questions of
the Jewish Refugees
Panel 1: Policies towards Jewish Refugees before the War (1933 -1939)
Introduction and chair: Jacobo Israel, writer and author
Avraham Milgram (Yad Vashem, Jerusalem), Portugal
Salomé Lienert (University of Basel), Switzerland
Pontus Rudberg (Hugo Valentin Centre, Uppsala University), Sweden
Corry Guttstadt (Yad Vashem, Jerusalem), Turkey
Panel 2: Policies towards Jewish Refugees during the War (1939 -1945)
Introduction and chair: Haim Avni (Hebrew University, Jerusalem)
Ruth Fivaz-Silbermann (Université de Genève), Switzerland
Claudia Ninhos (Universidade Nova de Lisboa), Portugal
Josep Calvet (Universidad de Lleida), Spain
Panel 3: Reactions to the German Ultimatum on the Repatriation of Jews
Chair: Thomas Lutz (Topographie of Terror Foundation, Berlin)
Introduction:
Corry Guttstadt (Yad Vashem, Jerusalem), Origins of the German Ultimatum
in 1942-1943 to Repatriate Jews with Neutral Citizenship
Irene Pimentel (Universidade Nova de Lisboa), Portugal
Izzet Bahar (University of Pittsburgh), Turkey
Bernd Rother (Willy Brandt Foundation), Spain
Rebecca Erbelding (United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Washington),
The approach of the War Refugee Board to the neutral countries regarding
the saving of Hungarian Jews
Chair: Esther Mucznik (Mémoshoá, Lisbon)
Panel 4: Rescue Myth, Public Debates, Historical Investigations
Chair: Eva Fried (Living History Forum, Sweden)
Introduction:
Alejandro Baer (Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, University of
Minnesota), The Politics of Rescue Myths. Lessons from Spain.
Esra Özyürek (Institute for Turkish Studies, London School of
Economics), Turkey
Karin Kvist (Hugo Valentin Centre, Uppsala University), Sweden
Anna Menny (Institut für die Geschichte der Deutschen Juden, Hamburg),
Spain
Uki Goñi (Buenos Aires), Argentine
Closing Remarks:
François Wisard (History Unit, Federal Department of Foreign Affairs,
Switzerland), The Swiss "Independent Commission of Experts" (1996-2002)
Public evening lecture
Yehuda Bauer (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance), Was Rescue
a Realistic Possibility During the Holocaust?
Panel 5: The Challenges of Holocaust Remembrance and Education in
Neutral Countries
Chair: François Wisard (History Unit, Federal Department of Foreign
Affairs, Switzerland)
Anna Menny (Institut für die Geschichte der Deutschen Juden, Hamburg)
Monique Eckmann (University of Applied Sciences, Geneva)
Pinar Dost-Niyego (Atlantic Council Turkey Office)
Marta Simó (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona)
Final Round Table Discussion: Current Debate and Research Perspectives
on Neutral Countries during the Holocaust
Chair: Bülent Bilmez / Tarih Vakfi (History Foundation, Istanbul) /
Bernd Rother (Willy Brandt Foundation)
Paul Levine (Hugo Valentin Centre, Uppsala University), Discussion on
further research desiderata and possible projects with representatives
of the participating organizations.
Closing remarks: Yehuda Bauer (International Holocaust Remembrance
Alliance)
Notes:
[1] Avraham Burg, The Holocaust Is Over; We Must Rise From its Ashes,
New York 2008, xiii.
[2] Maurice Halbwachs, On Collective Memory, Chicago 1992.
[3] Paul Ricoeur, "Memory, History and Forgetting," in: Representations,
no 26 (1989): 7-24.