Independent Commission of Historians - Federal Foreign Office

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Independent Commission of Historians - Foreign Office was on 11 July 2005 by the then Minister of Foreign Affairs Joschka Fischer used to the history of the Foreign Office and the Foreign Service in the era of National Socialism and in the Federal Republic of Germany to investigate. The occasion was an obituary decree in 2003 and the obituary affair in 2004 . To this end, a corresponding contract was signed between the Federal Foreign Office and the Commission on August 11, 2006. The commission published its results on October 21, 2010 as a book entitled The Office and the Past .

Employee

The Independent Commission of Historians consists of:

Scientific staff of the commission and co-authors are: Jochen Böhler (Uni Jena), Irith Dublon-Knebel (Tel Aviv University), Astrid Eckert (Emory University Atlanta), Norman Goda (University of Florida), William Gray (Purdue University), Lars Lüdicke (Uni Potsdam), Thomas Maulucci (American International College Springfield), Katrin Paehler (Illinois State University), Jan Erik Schulte (Hannah Arendt Institute for Totalitarian Research Dresden), Daniel Stahl (Uni Jena), Annette Weinke (Uni Jena) and Andrea Wiegeshoff (University of Marburg). Thomas Karlauf (Berlin) took over the final editing and proofreading .

Results

The research results of the commission have been available since October 21, 2010 as a book publication with the title The Office and the Past. German diplomats in the Third Reich and in the Federal Republic . The commission officially presented its study to Federal Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle on October 28, 2010 at an event at the Foreign Office (AA).

The book comes to the conclusion (in the first part) that the role of the Foreign Office in the Third Reich must be reassessed; the Foreign Office was not a refuge for resistance, but a pioneer of the “ final solution to the Jewish question ” and an active supporter of the deportation of Jews from Germany and the Holocaust . According to the second part of the book, the Office did not face this historical responsibility and guilt after the founding of the Federal Republic of Germany, but on the contrary excessively emphasized the resistance fighters from the ranks of the Foreign Office to the public.

Reception of the book; Evaluation of the work of the Commission

The book generated a lot of media coverage. The Commission's work met with mixed feedback. Initially, they were mostly rated positively, but then met with an increasingly critical reception. The historian Hans Mommsen calls the work “a masterpiece” as it succeeded in “condensing the mosaic of individual topics into a chronological description of the involvement of the AA in Nazi rule”. Mommsen particularly praises the second part of the book, which deals with denazification and the reconstruction of the Foreign Office together with its “high personal continuity to the Third Reich”, as it bears “the integrating handwriting of probably the best expert in the field, Norbert Frei”.

Mommsen, however, criticizes the, in his view, rigid focus of the study on “the persecution and extermination of Jews as a kind of 'yardstick'”: Neither would “other dimensions of the Nazi policy of violence - the treatment of prisoners of war, compulsory labor, euthanasia and much more ”was sufficiently taken into account, nor was“ the practical implementation of the Holocaust as the result of a gradual process ”sufficiently taken into account, so that the Federal Foreign Office's participation in the deportation plans would qualify as participation in the extermination of the Jews . This was only "true in the end result", since "before the Wannsee Conference it was not the concrete action orientation of the Nazi elite". Mommsen also criticizes the lack of sources that go “decisively” beyond the material already published in the files on German foreign policy , the edition of which was organized by Mommsen's academic teacher Hans Rothfels from 1950 onwards. There is also a lack of "new insights [...] compared to the extensive secondary literature already available", for example from Christopher Browning . The Independent Commission of Historians commented on the criticism in the Süddeutsche Zeitung .

In another review on December 27, 2010 in the Süddeutsche Zeitung , Mommsen emphasized that the office had considerable "methodological deficiencies" and "the tendency [...] to stop at sweeping judgments". With regard to the “final solution”, the thesis “can hardly be maintained that the office was directly involved in the“ decision-making ””. The Foreign Office was also not a “refuge of resistance”, but “the proportion of members of the resistance movements in the office was significantly higher” than in “comparable administrative apparatuses of the regime”. Referring to the historian Ulrich Herbert , who pointed to the competence of Commissioner Peter Hayes for Holocaust Research and rejected criticism of the commission's alleged lack of expertise in this matter as “improper”, Mommsen describes his own view that “the editors so far have no experience in Holocaust research ”, as“ indisputable ”.

For the American Holocaust researcher Christopher R. Browning , this commission report, which confirmed previous research and received “great public attention, was needed to destroy the myth that the Foreign Office was not involved in the crimes of the Third Reich, but a center of resistance against the National Socialists has been". He particularly praised the “chapter on the real resistance within the Federal Foreign Office”, which shows “how small and marginal this group was”. In order to clarify how this myth was shaped in the post-war period, the office made “important independent contributions to research”. Browning would have wished for “a stronger differentiation between the diplomats of the Third Reich with regard to their participation in 'Jewish policy' or their reaction to it”, a clearer distinction between active and passive complicity. Nevertheless, he finds “the basic lines of the argument are correct. As an institution, the Foreign Office made a contribution to the persecution of the Jews and to the 'Final Solution' ”. The study by the historians' commission means "the end of all cover-ups".

The Israeli historian Saul Friedländer said in an interview with the Süddeutsche Zeitung that he was already “familiar” with “many of the documents” on which the study Das Amt is based. But he emphasizes: “What is new is the achievement of bringing everything together in one volume and not only dealing with the Nazi era, but also the years afterwards.” With regard to Ernst von Weizsäcker's role , Friedländer “seems incomprehensible how the Claim that the Foreign Office was a stronghold of resistance ”. Friedländer finds Mommsen's criticism problematic, as “this extreme functionalism [...] leads to the implicit thesis that nobody in the hierarchy of the 'Third Reich' knew what it would lead to in the end [...], which corresponds to self-defense of the members of the Foreign Ministry. "

In January 2011, Horst Möller , then director of the Institute for Contemporary History (IfZ) , spoke in an article for the FAZ of a "flawed (...) tendentiously marketed, scandalous book" that the politicians from Konrad Adenauer and Willy Brandt up to to Walter Scheel, Hans-Dietrich Genscher and Klaus Kinkel general defamation. In view of the available file publications and secondary literature, "the claim that the Office and its Political Archives would hinder research into its role in the Nazi regime (...) is more than bold".

In April 2011 IfZ employee Johannes Hürter sharply criticized the book in a detailed specialist review in the Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte (VfZ) and accused the authors of some blanket criticism. The controversial thesis that the war had been waged as a war of annihilation from the start and that the Foreign Office, which was undoubtedly well informed, made the Nazis' "annihilation policy" possible was already unfortunate. Hürter denied, among other things, that almost all diplomats were also accomplices, as there was not always a distinction between confidante and accomplice. Rather, individual departments and departments were more closely involved in National Socialist politics, where convinced National Socialists also held key positions. Likewise, diplomats in some countries also took part in the persecution of the Jews there, which cannot be denied; The proportion of the Federal Foreign Office and some of its employees in Serbia, Greece and Hungary was serious. In Poland and the occupied Soviet Union, however, these were largely without influence and therefore, contrary to what is claimed in the book, did not play a leading role in “Jewish policy”. The assertion, for example, that after the German attack on the Soviet Union, the Foreign Office even "took the initiative to solve the 'Jewish question' at European level" and participated directly in the decision on the "final solution" is completely unfounded and therefore untenable . Hürter accused the authors of "moving between recognized, controversial and simply false findings" back and forth. He also criticized the public discourse regarding the publication.

In the world of Posener Alan guided conversation Commissioner Moshe Zimmermann rejected criticism Hürters, together with their umgehendem dealt with by the mirror back as politically motivated campaign. Hürter's allegations are not new and have long been refuted. The conclusions of the study are "the result of differentiated research". To deny it serves to "the so-called 'decent' people, like z. B. Ernst von Weizsäcker , the father of the former Federal President, to exonerate retroactively, which often played an important role in the early Federal Republic. "Zimmermann also expressed the suspicion that behind the relativization of complicity of the Foreign Office was a political agenda and so tried will specifically put pressure on former Foreign Minister Fischer, who commissioned the study.

In an article published on May 3, 2011 in the Frankfurter Rundschau , the authors of the study again dealt with Hürter's review and contradicted his sharp criticism.

The British historian Richard J. Evans also assessed the study The Foreign Office and the Past in the review journal Neue Politische Literatur in May 2011, sometimes very critically. There could be no doubt that the book was "deeply flawed". Scientific standards are not met because the current state of research has not been sufficiently taken into account and secondary literature, especially English-language literature, has not been considered. There is a general tendency to exaggerate the active participation of the Federal Foreign Office. This would make it easier especially for those who still believed in the "myth" of clean diplomats. Despite his harsh criticism, Evans concluded his meeting with a very positive appreciation of the investigation. There is no doubt that this book was urgently needed. Earlier studies on the Foreign Office would only have reached the specialist field. This deficit has been remedied by The Foreign Office and the past . As part of the government machinery of the Third Reich, the Foreign Office had approved and carried out the ideological policies of Nazism. Part of this would have included the persecution and extermination of the Jewish people, insofar as they fell within the competence of the Federal Foreign Office. The majority of the established diplomats and officials from the time of the republic believed in this policy and would have liked to carry it out. After the defeat, the same diplomats and officials went to great lengths to hide their part in this policy. The myth that the Foreign Office was a refuge of resistance was destroyed with this book.

Marie-Luise Recker , contemporary historian at the University of Frankfurt and author of the relevant 8th volume of the Encyclopedia of German History The Foreign Policy of the Third Reich , evaluates the fundamental theses of the historians' commission on the extensive self-alignment of the office in a comprehensive review for the historical journal (HZ) the Nazi regime and its role in the extermination policy as essentially applicable. In particular, the “active participation in his race and war policy was impressively worked out in the presentation”. She criticizes many "detailed cases of oversubscription and lack of differentiation", e.g. B. the weight of the diplomats in the "final solution of the Jewish question" is overestimated. Overall, the study makes an important contribution to “stimulating further research in this subject area”. Her "statements on personnel development and personnel structure - whether before or after 1945 - directed the view to subject areas that were rather excluded in previous research".

In an investigation into the internal differentiation of the Foreign Office under National Socialism, the historian Michael Mayer comes to the conclusion that it was primarily the special presentations led by convinced National Socialists who willingly cooperated with Reinhard Heydrich's Reich Main Security Office in the extermination of the Jews , while the diplomats from other traditional departments of the Office were only involved in the Nazi extermination machinery through adjustment services. He justifies his thesis, on the one hand, with the fact that Heydrich made it clear at the Wannsee Conference that the competences of the ministerial bureaucracy as vague rights of participation are limited "to measures against 'half Jews' and Jews who lived in a 'mixed marriage'". Only Section D III of the Germany 1940–1943 department had spoken out in favor of their deportation, the traditional Political and Legal Departments under Ernst Woermann and Friedrich Gaus , like State Secretary von Weizsäcker, merely took note of these suggestions and indicated that they would stay out of the matter to want. The Commission of Historians differentiated far too little in this respect and disregarded in its study the "deep cut" that had occurred when the ministerial change from Neurath to Ribbentrop in 1938 towards a National Socialist radicalized selection of employees. That is why the “global statement of the historians' commission” that the AA had become an institution after 1933 that “took initiatives” in the persecution of the Jews was not only “unconfirmed”, but “absurd” from the outset.

The German Historical Institute in Washington devoted a large part of its bulletin to the dispute over Das Amt in autumn 2011 , in which, in addition to reprints or translations of the reviews by Christopher R. Browning , Johannes Hürter , Holger Nehring and Volker Ullrich , a summary of the work of Norbert Frei and Peter Hayes appeared, in which they responded to some criticisms.

In May 2012, all four members of the historians ' commission presented their experiences in archival research at the Foreign Office in a detailed article for the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), which had published a series of critical articles on the study Das Amt Circumstances such as "destroyed files, missing documents, inaccessible documents", which would have made a historical analysis considerably more difficult. The stepped Rainer Blasius in the same newspaper content and methodology counter and threw the members of the Historical Commission in another item, they practiced "unfair campaign" with the aim of "own shortcomings and deficiencies as a precaution and as a precautionary measure equal to the Political Archive and the problem the 'inaccessibility' and / or the 'destruction' or 'cover-up' of source material ”.

In November 2013, the historian Daniel Koerfer published a comprehensive study on the history of the history of the Historians' Commission. In the volume he accuses Joschka Fischer of having set up the commission essentially out of revenge on his department, which would have made life difficult for him in the visa affair . By means of detailed case studies, for example on the Nüßlein and Rademacher cases, Koerfer argues that the Commission's report shortened or falsified in many places, which, in his opinion, was due to its historical and political thrust.

In December 2013, Martin Sabrow , Director of the Center for Contemporary History Research (ZZF) in Potsdam, and Christian Mentel, research assistant at the ZZF, presented a documentation of the most important contributions to the debate on The Office and the Past that had appeared up to the end of 2012 . You do not evaluate the individual contributions to the debate; In their introductory commentary they differentiate between different phases of this historical controversy: after the rather positive advance notice, a phase between criticism and approval balanced reception of the volume in the first month after publication of the volume; a polarization phase in late November / early December 2010; an increasingly unobjective confrontation from late 2010 to April 2011; an objectification based on scientific specialist discourse from April to October 2011 and an increasing flattening due to "rearguard battles". The three résumés at the end of the volume, on the one hand by the members of the historians' commission Conze, Frei, Hayes and Zimmermann, on the other hand by Rainer Blasius and finally Hans-Jürgen Döscher , are very different: the former see a campaign set in motion against them, the The aim is to relativize the significant involvement of the Federal Foreign Office in the Holocaust and other research results in the volume, which were particularly well received abroad. In contrast, Blasius refers to the shortcomings and inadequacies of the study as well as inappropriate attacks by the commission members on the Political Archives of the Foreign Office. Döscher indicates difficulties in focusing the advantages and weaknesses of the tape in the chorus of the heavily expressed rejection, which in the course of the debate came mainly from retirees close to the AA and emphasizes the extensive and broad reception of the research results in the public. All three statements (as contradicting as they are) share the opinion that the work initiated further important research or gave it a strong boost - including upcoming special studies of the Nazi past by other ministries.

literature

  • Eckart Conze, Norbert Frei, Peter Hayes and Moshe Zimmermann: The Office and the Past. German diplomats in the Third Reich and in the Federal Republic . Karl Blessing Verlag, Munich 2010, ISBN 978-3-89667-430-2 (also as a paperback at Pantheon, Munich 2012, ISBN 978-3-570-55166-0 ).
  • Foreign Office / Political Archive and Historical Unit: files on German foreign policy. 1918-1945. From the archive of the Foreign Office . Göttingen u. a. 1950-1995; Series A to Series E; Finally with the supplementary volume: Complete directory of persons, portrait photos and data on service use, attachments. 1918-1945. From the archive of the Foreign Office . Goettingen 1995.
  • Foreign Office, Historical Service: Biographical Handbook of the German Foreign Service 1871–1945 . Schöningh, Paderborn 2000f., ISBN 3-506-71840-1 (volumes A – F, G – K and L – R have been published so far).
  • Christian Mentel: The debate about “The office and the past” . In: APuZ , 32–34, 2012, pp. 38–46.
  • Martin Sabrow and Christian Mentel (eds.): The Foreign Office and its controversial past. A German debate . Fischer paperback, Frankfurt a. M. 2014, ISBN 978-3-596-19602-9 .

Web links

Pages to the Historians' Commission

Information offers from contemporary history online

Reviews - interviews - statements (chronological)

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Eckart Conze, Norbert Frei, Peter Hayes and Moshe Zimmermann: The office and the past. German diplomats in the Third Reich and in the Federal Republic . Munich 2010, p. 3 u. 720.
  2. ↑ "You could settle murder as an official business." Documentation of the speech by Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle when the study was handed over by the Commission of Historians . In: FAZ.net , October 28, 2010.
  3. ↑ See the overview of reviews of reputable newspapers on Perlentaucher .
  4. ↑ See last the comprehensive criticism by Johannes Hürter: The Foreign Office, the Nazi dictatorship and the Holocaust. Critical comments on a Commission report . In: VfZ 59, 2011, issue 2, pp. 167–192.
  5. ↑ a b c d e f g Hans Mommsen: The whole extent of entanglement . In: Frankfurter Rundschau , November 16, 2010 ( online edition ( Memento of November 24, 2010 in the Internet Archive )).
  6. ↑ Files on German foreign policy. 1918-1945. From the archive of the Foreign Office . Göttingen u. a. 1950-1995.
  7. ↑ Eckart Conze, Norbert Frei, Peter Hayes and Moshe Zimmermann: Our book hit a nerve. Diplomats under National Socialism: The Independent Commission of Historians answers its critics . In: Süddeutsche Zeitung No. 286, December 10, 2010, p. 13; see also the short version on sueddeutsche.de .
  8. ↑ a b Hans Mommsen: Missed opportunities. “The Office” has methodological shortcomings . In: Süddeutsche Zeitung , December 27, 2010, p. 29.
  9. ↑ Interview with the Federal Foreign Office involved in Nazi Germany. “In the end only victims” . In: taz.de , December 8, 2010 (Interview by Stefan Reinecke and Christian Semler with the historian Ulrich Herbert).
  10. ↑ Christopher R. Browning: Historian study "The Office". The end of all cover-ups . In: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung , December 10, 2010.
  11. ↑ a b c Claudia Tieschky, Willi Winkler: As precise as possible, but incredulous. A conversation with the historian Saul Friedländer about “Das Amt”, the Catholic Church and emotional science . In: Süddeutsche Zeitung , January 10, 2011, p. 11.
  12. ↑ Horst Möller : What is the sensation? In: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung of January 18, 2011, p. 8.
  13. ↑ Johannes Hürter: [1] The Foreign Office, the Nazi dictatorship and the Holocaust. Critical comments on a Commission report . In: VfZ 59, 2011, issue 2, pp. 167–192.
  14. ↑ Klaus Wiegrefe: Dispute about "The Office". Historians tore apart bestsellers . In: Spiegel Online , April 1, 2011.
  15. ↑ Alan Posener: “This is a campaign.” The Munich Institute for Contemporary History attacks the bestseller “The Office and the Past” . Moshe Zimmermann, co-author of the study, sees political motives behind the criticism. In: Welt Online , April 4, 2011.
  16. ↑ Alan Posener: “This is a campaign.” The Munich Institute for Contemporary History attacks the bestseller “The Office and the Past” . Moshe Zimmermann, co-author of the study, sees political motives behind the criticism. In: Welt Online , April 4, 2011.
  17. ↑ Debate on “The Office”: The magic word differentiation . In: Frankfurter Rundschau , May 3, 2011.
  18. ↑ Richard Evans: The German Foreign Office and the Nazi Past (PDF; 145 kB), in: Neue Politische Literatur 56, 2011, Heft 2, pp. 165-183.
  19. ↑ Jan Friedmann: Debate on "The Office". "This book is profoundly flawed" . In: Spiegel Online , May 27, 2011. Michael Hesse: “Many allegations fall short”. The study "The Office" continues to cause controversy - the historian Richard J. Evans in conversation about a controversial book . In: Frankfurter Rundschau , July 8, 2011, pp. 24–25.
  20. ^ Marie-Luise Recker: The Foreign Office and its past. About careers, complicity and networks. Discussion of “The Office and the Past” . In: Historische Zeitschrift 293, 2011, issue 1, p. 130.
  21. ^ Marie-Luise Recker: The Foreign Office and Its Past , p. 128.
  22. ^ Marie-Luise Recker: The Foreign Office and Its Past , p. 136.
  23. ^ Marie-Luise Recker: The Foreign Office and Its Past , p. 136.
  24. ↑ Michael Mayer: Actors, Crimes and Continuities. The Foreign Office in the Third Reich - An Internal Differentiation . In: VfZ 59, 2011, issue 4, pp. 509-532.
  25. ↑ Michael Mayer: Actors, Crimes and Continuities. The Foreign Office in the Third Reich - A Internal Differentiation , p. 528.
  26. ↑ Cf. Christopher Browning: The "Final Solution" and the Foreign Office. Section D III of the Germany Department 1940–1943. From the American by Claudia Kotte. Foreword by Jürgen Matthäus. WBG, Darmstadt 2010. ISBN 3534228707 .
  27. ↑ Michael Mayer: Actors, Crimes and Continuities. The Foreign Office in the Third Reich - A Internal Differentiation , p. 528 ff.
  28. ↑ Michael Mayer: Actors, Crimes and Continuities. The Foreign Office in the Third Reich - Ein Binnendifferenzierung , p. 514 u. P. 531.
  29. ↑ Michael Mayer: Actors, Crimes and Continuities. The Foreign Office in the Third Reich - A Internal Differentiation , p. 531.
  30. ^ Forum: The German Foreign Office and the Nazi Past . In: Bulletin of the German Historical Institute 49, Fall 2011, pp. 51–109 ( overview of the entire issue on ghi-dc.org; with the contributions: Norbert Frei, Peter Hayes: The German Foreign Office and the Past . Christopher R . Browning: The German Foreign Office Revisited . Johannes Hürter: The German Foreign Office, the Nazi Dictatorship, and the Holocaust . Holger Nehring: Skeletons in the Filing Cabinet . Volker Ullrich: Hitler's Brown Diplomats ).
  31. ↑ Eckart Conze, Norbert Frey, Peter Hayes, Moshe Zimmermann: The Archives of the Foreign Office. Safe of shame . In: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung , May 5, 2012.
  32. ^ Rainer Blasius: Destruction of files during Fischer's term of office. In: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung of May 31, 2012.
  33. ^ Rainer Blasius: Eternal dispute over the diplomatic files . In: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung , July 9, 2012.
  34. ^ Daniel Koerfer: Diplomatic hunt: Joschka Fischer, his independent commission and the AMT . Strauss Medien Edition, Potsdam 2013, ISBN 978-3-943713-15-2 .
  35. ↑ See also the review of Koerfer's study by Thomas Schmid : Joschka Fischer's Rache am Auswärtigen Amt. In: The world . 18th November 2013.
  36. ↑ Martin Sabrow and Christian Mentel (eds.): The Foreign Office and its controversial past. A German debate . Fischer paperback, Frankfurt a. M. 2014, p. 9–46, p. 49ff., P. 101ff., P. 157ff., P. 221ff., P. 285ff., P. 367ff.
  37. ↑ Martin Sabrow and Christian Mentel (eds.): The Foreign Office and its controversial past. A German debate . Fischer paperback, Frankfurt a. M. 2014, pp. 401f. (Conze, Frei, Hayes and Zimmermann), 403f. (Blasius), 404f. (Döscher).