Date: Fri, 6 May 1994 19:47:52 -0500
Reply-To: German History list
Sender: German History list
From: H-GERMAN MODERATOR Dan Rogers
Subject: BDC: World Jewish Congress Position
Submitted by: Dan Rogers
Statement of Elan Steinberg, Executive Director, World Jewish Congress,
on the Berlin Document Center before the House Committee on Foreign
Affairs, April 28, 1994
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I thank you for the
opportunity of allowing me to testify on the impending transfer of the
Berlin Document Center from U.S. to German control and wish to commend you
on behalf of the World Jewish Congress for the diligence you have shown in
pursuing this matter.
The World Jewish Congress is the representative body of Jewish
communities in eighty countries and was founded in 1936 to mobilize the
Jewish people and all democratic forces in the face of the looming threat
posed by Hitler's Germany. At the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, the WJC
served as counsel for Jewish affairs for the American prosecutors. Our
concerns regarding the fate of the BDC are therefore manifest.
More than three years ago, when we became aware of plans to remove the
archives of the BDC from American control, a WJC delegation visited the
site and gave public airing to our concerns which were reported by the
Reuter's news agency and The Washington Post. With the hand over of these
millions of documents scheduled for two months from now, our concerns,
sadly, have not been allayed.
There are legal, technical, procedural, practical, and moral
dimensions to the issue pertaining to relinquishment of the BDC. The legal
and technical matters will undoubtedly be addressed in the statements and
testimonies being provided this Committee by the relevant experts at hand.
I would, if I may, seek to relate from our experience to the moral and then
practical and procedural dimensions.
Elie Wiesel -- Nobel laureate; Holocaust survivor -- noted: "It is not
enough to know, or to wish to know, everything possible about the victims,
we must also try to know as much as possible about the killers. The
document center deals with motivation, possibilities, and 'achievement.'
All available information must be insured so it will not be curtailed or
hidden in any way. That is why the documents should have remained in the
hands of the Americans."
We will undoubtedly hear how many marks the German government paid to
have those documents microfilmed. I would submit the price we paid to
acquire these documents was immeasurably higher. The currency of course
was the blood of brave young American and Allied soldiers. Is their
sacrifice to be redeemed so cavalierly? Do we have the moral right
therefore to acquiesce in the relinquishment of this terrible historical
legacy? I pose the question of course, but I do not answer it.
Our direct experience can serve as an example of what obstacles lay
before us if nothing is done before July. The case in this instance is
that of Dr. Hans Joachim Sewering.
In 1933, Dr. Sewering -- a former head of the German Doctors Guild who
runs a medical practice in Dachau near Munich -- was to assume office as
president of the World Medical Association. Dr. Sewering however had been
a member of the Nazi SS.
The WJC obtained from the BDC a thirty-one page file on Dr. Sewering's
Nazi past detailing his membership in the Nazi party and the SS. (The WJC
wishes to submit this file to the Committee). The international outcry
following these revelations and charges of his involvement in the Nazi
euthanasia program, forced Dr. Sewering to withdraw from the presidency of
the World Medical Association.
That was last year. Under current arrangements for the transfer of
the BDC, the World Jewish Congress would apparently not have access to the
Sewering file after July. German privacy laws would bar that access.
It should be stressed that this is because the Sewering case was not a
criminal proceeding. We note in this regard the comments by Dieter Kruger,
the German archivist who will take charge of the BDC. In the _New Yorker_
article of March 14, 1994 he told Gerald Posner, "I am bound by the law and
must protect the privacy of the person for thirty years after his death. I
will sometimes have to reject access to original documents." He pointedly
added, "If someone is only interested in finding out if a politician was a
party member, then that is not historically useful."
It might be asked if the matter is moot since microfilm copies will be
available here after July. But that's the problem -- copies won't be here
in July. The user's copy won't be available for two years or more. Until
then -- putting aside technical questions regarding microfilm copies --
unfettered access to the original documents is imperative.
The World Jewish Congress salutes the Justice Department's Office of
Special Investigations for its diligence in insuring that clauses in the
agreement with Germany allow it continued access to the BDC. Were it not
for OSI's persistence in this matter, even this might have been lost.
Unfortunately, scholars, historians, research institutions, and journalists
are not included under the current arrangements. And if they are not
protected, the public at large is not protected.
Mr. Chairman, what we respectfully ask of this Committee is nothing
less than a writ of protection for the search for historical truth. At a
minimum, we would ask your help in securing continued unfettered access to
the BDC. Certainly, it is not too much to ask that this continue until a
complete microfilm users copy of the documents is available -- a set which
should be scrutinized for acceptability by an independent panel of
historians and experts. Until these safeguards are in place, we are
shirking our moral and historical responsibility.