{"title":"律师书写历史:1948年至20世纪80年代联合赔偿组织(URO)过去的政治","authors":"D. Siemens","doi":"10.1177/16118944231180427","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article explores the Geschichts- and Vergangenheitspolitik, or politics of the past, of the United Restitution Office/Organisation (URO) in the post-war years and asks how it impacted on the early historiography of the Holocaust. I demonstrate that the URO leadership took a conscious decision to publicly downplay the role of its organisation in German reparations to maximise its legal and political clout behind closed doors. While this strategy was beneficial for many of URO's clients, above all in the 1950s and 1960s, this self-marginalisation prevented the organisation from becoming a significant voice in the public debates about German moral guilt and its consequences in the 1970s and 1980s. One reason for this development was generational. The URO was an enterprise driven by a particular cohort of German-Jewish lawyers for whom it provided an opportunity to personally ‘come to terms’ with the interruptions of their pre-1933 careers and the persecution during the Third Reich. In the post-war period, their legal expertise as well as their intimate knowledge of the German language and customs allowed them to act as transnational citizen diplomats, successfully mediating between the different parties and interest groups, governments and non-governmental lobby groups. For most of these Jewish jurists, their practical experience with their German peers, politicians and the administrators of the German Wiedergutmachung led to an increasing scepticism and ultimately disappointment – despite the undisputedly impressive results that they obtained for their clients.","PeriodicalId":44275,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Modern European History","volume":"21 1","pages":"343 - 360"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Lawyers Writing History: The Politics of the Past of the United Restitution Organisation (URO) from 1948 to the 1980s\",\"authors\":\"D. Siemens\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/16118944231180427\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article explores the Geschichts- and Vergangenheitspolitik, or politics of the past, of the United Restitution Office/Organisation (URO) in the post-war years and asks how it impacted on the early historiography of the Holocaust. I demonstrate that the URO leadership took a conscious decision to publicly downplay the role of its organisation in German reparations to maximise its legal and political clout behind closed doors. While this strategy was beneficial for many of URO's clients, above all in the 1950s and 1960s, this self-marginalisation prevented the organisation from becoming a significant voice in the public debates about German moral guilt and its consequences in the 1970s and 1980s. One reason for this development was generational. The URO was an enterprise driven by a particular cohort of German-Jewish lawyers for whom it provided an opportunity to personally ‘come to terms’ with the interruptions of their pre-1933 careers and the persecution during the Third Reich. In the post-war period, their legal expertise as well as their intimate knowledge of the German language and customs allowed them to act as transnational citizen diplomats, successfully mediating between the different parties and interest groups, governments and non-governmental lobby groups. For most of these Jewish jurists, their practical experience with their German peers, politicians and the administrators of the German Wiedergutmachung led to an increasing scepticism and ultimately disappointment – despite the undisputedly impressive results that they obtained for their clients.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44275,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Modern European History\",\"volume\":\"21 1\",\"pages\":\"343 - 360\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Modern European History\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/16118944231180427\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Modern European History","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/16118944231180427","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
本文探讨了战后时期联合归还办公室/组织(URO)的Geschichts- and Vergangenheitspolitik,或过去的政治,并探讨了它对大屠杀早期史学的影响。我证明,欧洲统一联盟领导层有意识地决定公开淡化其组织在德国赔款问题上的作用,以最大限度地发挥其关起门来的法律和政治影响力。虽然这种策略对URO的许多客户都是有益的,尤其是在20世纪50年代和60年代,但这种自我边缘化阻碍了该组织在20世纪70年代和80年代关于德国道德内疚及其后果的公共辩论中成为一个重要的声音。这种发展的一个原因是代际关系。URO是由一群特殊的德国犹太律师推动的企业,它为他们提供了一个亲自“接受”1933年之前职业中断和第三帝国迫害的机会。在战后时期,他们的法律专业知识以及他们对德语和习俗的深入了解使他们能够作为跨国公民外交官,成功地在不同党派和利益集团、政府和非政府游说团体之间进行调解。对这些犹太法学家中的大多数人来说,他们与德国同行、政治家和德国最高法院管理者的实际经历导致了越来越多的怀疑和最终的失望——尽管他们为客户取得了无可争议的令人印象深刻的结果。
Lawyers Writing History: The Politics of the Past of the United Restitution Organisation (URO) from 1948 to the 1980s
This article explores the Geschichts- and Vergangenheitspolitik, or politics of the past, of the United Restitution Office/Organisation (URO) in the post-war years and asks how it impacted on the early historiography of the Holocaust. I demonstrate that the URO leadership took a conscious decision to publicly downplay the role of its organisation in German reparations to maximise its legal and political clout behind closed doors. While this strategy was beneficial for many of URO's clients, above all in the 1950s and 1960s, this self-marginalisation prevented the organisation from becoming a significant voice in the public debates about German moral guilt and its consequences in the 1970s and 1980s. One reason for this development was generational. The URO was an enterprise driven by a particular cohort of German-Jewish lawyers for whom it provided an opportunity to personally ‘come to terms’ with the interruptions of their pre-1933 careers and the persecution during the Third Reich. In the post-war period, their legal expertise as well as their intimate knowledge of the German language and customs allowed them to act as transnational citizen diplomats, successfully mediating between the different parties and interest groups, governments and non-governmental lobby groups. For most of these Jewish jurists, their practical experience with their German peers, politicians and the administrators of the German Wiedergutmachung led to an increasing scepticism and ultimately disappointment – despite the undisputedly impressive results that they obtained for their clients.