Date Fri, 6 May 1994 10 50 36 -0500
Reply-To: German History list
Sender: German History list
From: H-GERMAN MODERATOR Dan Rogers
Subject: BDC: Historians' Testimony
Submitted by: Dan Rogers
[moderator's note: Geoffrey J. Giles is associate professor of history at
the University of Florida, and chair of the Archives Committee of the
German Studies Association]
House Foreign Affairs Committee
Hearing on transfer of Berlin Document Center
April 28th, 1994
TESTIMONY OF PROFESSOR GEOFFREY J. GILES
The recent statements by senior German archivists about probable
restrictions of access to the documents in the Berlin Document Center are
causing grave concern to historians of modern Germany in this country. The
files in this archive are among the most important for the study of the
Nazi period, for which much scholarly research remains to be done.
My own experience of working in the BDC ranges over the past twenty years.
I am pleased that the entire archive is being microfilmed, which will
preserve its holdings indefinitely. I am now satisfied, after talking with
Dr. Marwell, the director, that the microfilming project has been of the
highest quality. Yet I must add that on certain occasions there is no
substitute for the original document. This is particularly the case for
documents written lightly and untidily by hand in pencil or ink, especially
those using an archaic script, of which there are many in the BDC. Often
they are almost impossible to read in the original, but copes such as I
have received in the past from the BDC or the German Federal Archives are
indecipherable. Guarantees of access for historians (and not just
government investigators) must be maintained, in order that enquiries into
this period of history may be continued uninterrupted.
Despite some rumors to the contrary, it appears that scholarly research by
historians from this country and others will continue an a "business as
usual" basis after July 1st, 1994. That at least is the expectation that
Dr. Marwell has of his successor, Dr. Krueger. It is certainly disturbing
that Krueger has been restricting researchers on the Bergen-Belsen
concentration camp, at the Berlin-Hoppegarten archive he currently heads,
to two files per day, making their work extremely difficult. The
explanation is that Hoppegarten is short-staffed, and that is not expected
to be the case at the BDC. Yet that is no reason not to press for
safeguards. With the economic situation in Germany still rather uncertain,
the government may well be obliged to cut positions at any of its archives
in the next few years, which could provide a plausible excuse for severe
restrictions not currently expected. In any case, applications for use of
the BDC records will increase enormously, as ordinary Germans become
eligible for access. In 1993, the BDC conducted 20,000 name searches. A
doubling of request might represent the most conservative estimate for
1995, given the experience of the Stasi secret police archive in East
Berlin. The staff will be required to meet _some_ of these requests, and
scholars may suffer as a result.
The German Federal Archives has a generally very good record of cooperation
with historians. But it should be noted that that is dependent upon the
good will of its leadership at any particular moment. The archives law
that regulates access and controls privacy is not in itself restrictive,
but such laws can be interpreted in unhelpful ways. The record of the
relations of German archives in general toward academic historians, trying
to conduct research on the Nazi period, has over the last twenty-five years
been at best a mixed one, and sometimes downright obstructionist.
Archivists have lied about the existence of files, they have flatly refused
to let scholars see them, and occasionally they have even burnt Nazi files
rather that reveal the compromising material that they contain. The worst
excesses of this type occurred in the 1970s, but with the passage of data
protection laws in the 1980s, many obstacles were again laid in the path of
those investigating human rights violations under the Third Reich, leading
to a widespread perception that it was not (as was the intention of the
law) the privacy of the victims that was being protected, but rather that
of their surviving Nazi persecutors.
For example, the archives law of the state of Baden-Wuerttemberg was widely
acclaimed as one of the most "research friendly" in Germany. Yet as late
as 1988 my own research was completely blocked, when I tried to investigate
the case of a university professor who had been unjustly arrested, and
probably tortured by the Gestapo into signing a confession. The
unfortunate man was then castrated by a prison doctor _before_ his trial
(which it was feared would lead to an acquittal), and he was stripped of
his doctorate by the University. I was denied access to the files with the
argument that the matter was too sensitive. When I publicly deplored this
cover-up, the chancellor of the university began to publicly defame me, and
it took a feature on the main evening news on German television before the
Minister of Education intervened to promise reasonable access to such
files. I mention this incident, in order to underline the fact that there
are still very many people in Germany, often people in powerful positions,
who will do all they can to prevent research into the Nazi history of their
institution, city, state or country.
The microfilming of the BDC records is a great step in the direction of
preventing such abuses, apart from two caveats:
1) I cannot believe that it will take less that two years for the users'
copy to become available in the National Archives;
2) The National Archives' own privacy restrictions have not yet been
clarified.
If all goes well, American researchers will be able to work on the BDC
material in this country within the two-year time frame. Yet just as
staffing cuts may alter the conditions of access in Berlin, we cannot know
in advance what other priorities within the National Archives may remove
staff from this particular project, perhaps delaying availability for
several more years. During this interim period it is especially important
that historians continue to be allowed to use the original documents in
Berlin. On the second point, I have to express my astonishment that the
National Archives is imposing _any_ restrictions to bona fide researchers
on access to the microfilms. While such hindrances have become more
frequent in German archives in the last decade, they have never been
imposed upon users of the BDC. That is why it has been such a crucial
archive for the investigation of the Third Reich. And therefore any such
new restrictions that move toward the new German practice will worsen
conditions of research, and indeed directly hamper the efficient and speedy
completion of research in this area.
The prognosis is not good. It looks as though, as a result of the BDC
transfer, important research projects into the Nazi period will at best be
made more cumbersome. At worst, research into these topic could virtually
cease for the next two years, if access to the BDC is not guaranteed to
American researchers. This is a serious matter indeed, the more so in
light of increased public interest in the Holocaust following the
appearance of the movie, "Schindler's List". I believe it to be vital for
the Congress to express these concerns in a forthright manner to the German
government.
* * * * * * * * * * *
Testimony of Henry Friedlander, Professor of History, Department of Judaic
Studies, Brooklyn College, City University of New York, before the
Subcommittee on International Security, International Organizations and
Human Rights of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, 28 April 1994
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, it is a great honor to testify
before you about the transfer of the Berlin Document Center (BDC) from
American to German control. My first experience working with German
documents in Allied custody dates back to 1957, when I did research for my
Ph.D. dissertation on photocopies of German cabinet minutes at the British
Foreign Office Library in London, and later in the United States on
microfilms at the National Archives and the Hoover Institution. Further,
in 1958 I worked for the American Historical Association in Alexandria,
Virginia, selecting and describing captured German documents for
microfilming. My first research experience with the records of the Berlin
Document Center, however, came almost twenty years later, in 1975, and has
continued until today.
The BDC is a unique archive holding personnel records from the Nazi party,
its formations, and government agencies. It provides biographical
information essential for any historian writing about Nazi Germany. In my
most recent research project this involved, for example, information about
79 physicians and scientists involved in the murder of the handicapped, and
later also the murder of Jews and Gypsies. As you can see from my
summaries, I recorded their dates and places of birth, the years they
received their medical degrees and licenses, their specialization
certifications, and their memberships in the Nazi party and its formations.
Although BDC records are organized by person, not by subject, information
about each person is filed in various collections. Thus information had to
be compiled from the personnel record of each of the 79 persons in several
distinct record groups. This involved documents from at least 632
locations. To compile such 79 profiles from microfilm would be
extraordinarily difficult and cumbersome. In the years of American control
of BDC, access was total, working conditions ideal, and service friendly
and efficient. This will be sorely missed.
Microfilms have their uses, but they are not a substitute for the original
documents or even good photocopies. They are better than nothing, and thus
serve an important security function. But for research they are decidedly
inferior. Microfilms do not provide the texture of the original. They
make comparisons difficult; one can look at only one frame at a time.
Research in microfilms requires a constant change of rolls. And it is
usually very cumbersome to obtain copies from microfilms. Further, copies
are simply not as easy to decipher as the original, especially in records
that include so much handwriting. In some cases copies are almost
unreadable, as you can see from those involving the staff of the killing
centers Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka, which were partly burned. Finally,
as I get older, I have discovered that microfilm reading and bifocal
glasses are simply not compatible.
I therefore believe that regardless of who owns these documents, the
originals should remain as accessible as they have been under American
custody. I do not quarrel with the desire of the Germans to possess their
Nazi personnel files, although I do not understand why they want to spend
large sums of money to do so at a time when they find it difficult to pay
for the modernization of archives, libraries, and universities in East
Germany. Unfortunately, I fear the transfer agreement does not guarantee
continued access.
My research experiences in Germany, both at the Federal Archives and those
on the state level, have shown me that access is often granted or denied in
a completely arbitrary fashion. In some places, total access was granted,
and copies were provided in an open and efficient manner. I would never
have been able to complete my research without the generous support of the
state archives in Stuttgart, Wiesbaden, and Berlin. But in other local
archives the opposite has been true; the archives in Berlin-Dahlem,
Duesseldorf, and Hamburg are notorious for restricting access.
The Federal Archives in Koblenz and Freiburg have also been most
forthcoming, granting access and providing copies. But there were
exceptions, and those are revealing. The so-called Arnold collection at
Koblenz contains official German government documents concerning the fate
of the Gypsies during the Holocaust. But they are available only with the
permission of the donor, the "Gypsy expert" Hermann Arnold, who had
received the documents from the Nazi perpetrators. The collection includes
minutes of a meeting of senior officials of Heydrich's security police, a
document as important for the history of the murder of Gypsies as the
Wannsee minutes are for that of Jews. At the 1991 meeting of the German
Studies Association in Los Angeles, I publicly asked Klaus Oldenhage of the
German Federal Archives, who participated at a panel I chaired, about this
document. He denied that any such documents would be kept secret and gave
his assurance that he would provide a copy. I am still waiting.
My encounter with other types of German records has been useful in placing
my archival experiences in perspective. For the last ten years I have
conducted research in the postwar judicial records of German war crimes
trials. Although there is no obligation to open such recent records for
research, I gained full access because state attorneys, even the attorneys
general, were anxious to make them available. My dealings with state
attorneys have been eminently satisfying, but it was based on personal
contacts, and the rules of the justice ministries, which are more liberal
and more flexible that those of the interior ministry that controls the
archives. Both judiciary and archives demand privacy for individuals
mentioned in the documents, the infamous _Datenschutz_, but the judiciary
simply asked that the researcher sign an agreement not to mention
individuals unless they are "persons of history," which includes, after
all, Nazi functionaries; they do not ink out the names. Still, recent
changes in judicial regulations require permission from the ministry for
access granted to non-Germans (in their phraseology: "persons who do not
reside in the territory covered by the German penal code"). I have had no
personal trouble to gain this permission, but it shows how easily access
could be limited for Americans.
Copies of most judicial records have been collected at the Central Office
for the Investigation of Nazi Crimes in Ludwigsburg. The Ludwigsburg
collection is very similar to the Berlin Document Center. Both were
originally designed to serve a government function, and have continued to
do so while also functioning as a research archive. Both grant easy
access, give expert guidance, and provide copies. As in the case of the
BDC, the Federal Archives has been anxious to acquire the Ludwigsburg
collection. There have been several serious objections to the transfer of
records. Opponents have argued that the archives will disperse the
documents among various collections, and thus destroy the unity and context
of these records. They have also pointed out that such dispersal would
make the excellent Ludwigsburg catalogue useless, and that without a
knowledgeable staff no one would be able to explain the collection. Many
of these complaints apply also to the BDC. Concerning Ludwigsburg, the
judicial authorities have so far, fortunately, been successful in resisting
transfer to the German Federal Archives.
Since even the best microfilms are not a substitute for the original
documents, I do hope, Mr. Chairman, that the United States can persuade the
German government to guarantee the continued operation of the BDC in its
present form, and with continued access for all American researchers
without the imposition of privacy limitations on historic records.