Understanding the Third Reich by Means of the Law: The Decisions of the Supreme Restitution Court for Berlin as Sources on the Holocaust and the Development of Holocaust Interpretations

IF 0.3 3区 历史学 Q2 HISTORY
Eva Balz
{"title":"Understanding the Third Reich by Means of the Law: The Decisions of the Supreme Restitution Court for Berlin as Sources on the Holocaust and the Development of Holocaust Interpretations","authors":"Eva Balz","doi":"10.1177/16118944231180432","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article introduces the decisions of the Oberstes Rückerstattungsgericht für Berlin (Supreme Restitution Court for Berlin) as historical sources that contribute to a better understanding of how early interpretations of the Holocaust developed. The Oberstes Rückerstattungsgericht für Berlin was established in 1953 as the final court of appeals for restitution matters in West Berlin. Some of its decisions were published in a collection that would later be used by judges, lawyers and claimants. Legal experts and practitioners who dealt with restitution would also discuss these decisions extensively. As no other means of gathering insight into the Oberstes Rückerstattungsgericht für Berlin's work were available, its publications became the most important communicative channel for actors within the Court's jurisdiction. The decisions contained distinct narratives concerning the Third Reich that stressed the importance of authoritative political structures while also focussing on state agencies and the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei as main actors. The accounts given in the decisions were partly based on analyses of historical records that were performed either by the judges themselves or by historians at the Institut für Zeitgeschichte in Munich (Institute for Contemporary History). This article suggests that on a broader societal level, the decisions contributed to the dissemination of state-centred ideas about the Holocaust. At the same time, the text draws attention to their complicated genesis. Situating the emergence of the decisions alongside the concrete implementation of restitution laws, the Cold War in Berlin and Vergangenheitspolitik (politics of the past), I demonstrate that the perpetuation of state-focussed historical concepts, to a large extent, resulted from the judges’ desire to lessen their significant workloads and to work without the interference of political actors.","PeriodicalId":44275,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Modern European History","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-15","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/10.1177/16118944231180432","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

Abstract

This article introduces the decisions of the Oberstes Rückerstattungsgericht für Berlin (Supreme Restitution Court for Berlin) as historical sources that contribute to a better understanding of how early interpretations of the Holocaust developed. The Oberstes Rückerstattungsgericht für Berlin was established in 1953 as the final court of appeals for restitution matters in West Berlin. Some of its decisions were published in a collection that would later be used by judges, lawyers and claimants. Legal experts and practitioners who dealt with restitution would also discuss these decisions extensively. As no other means of gathering insight into the Oberstes Rückerstattungsgericht für Berlin's work were available, its publications became the most important communicative channel for actors within the Court's jurisdiction. The decisions contained distinct narratives concerning the Third Reich that stressed the importance of authoritative political structures while also focussing on state agencies and the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei as main actors. The accounts given in the decisions were partly based on analyses of historical records that were performed either by the judges themselves or by historians at the Institut für Zeitgeschichte in Munich (Institute for Contemporary History). This article suggests that on a broader societal level, the decisions contributed to the dissemination of state-centred ideas about the Holocaust. At the same time, the text draws attention to their complicated genesis. Situating the emergence of the decisions alongside the concrete implementation of restitution laws, the Cold War in Berlin and Vergangenheitspolitik (politics of the past), I demonstrate that the perpetuation of state-focussed historical concepts, to a large extent, resulted from the judges’ desire to lessen their significant workloads and to work without the interference of political actors.
从法律的角度理解第三帝国:柏林最高归还法院关于大屠杀的裁决和大屠杀解释的发展
本文介绍柏林最高赔偿法院(Oberstes rckerstattungsgericht f r Berlin)的判决,作为有助于更好地理解早期对大屠杀的解释如何发展的历史来源。Oberstes rckerstattungsgericht fr Berlin成立于1953年,是西柏林赔偿事务的最终上诉法院。它的一些裁决被发表在一个文集中,后来被法官、律师和索赔人使用。处理赔偿问题的法律专家和从业人员也将广泛讨论这些决定。由于没有其他方法可以深入了解Oberstes r ckerstattungsgericht fbr Berlin的工作,因此其出版物成为法院管辖范围内行为者最重要的交流渠道。这些决定包含了关于第三帝国的独特叙述,强调了权威政治结构的重要性,同时也侧重于国家机构和国家民族主义党作为主要行动者。判决书中的叙述部分是基于对历史记录的分析,这些分析要么是由法官自己完成的,要么是由慕尼黑当代历史研究所(Institute for Contemporary History)的历史学家完成的。本文表明,在更广泛的社会层面上,这些决定促进了以国家为中心的大屠杀思想的传播。同时,本文还关注了它们复杂的起源。我将判决的出现与赔偿法律的具体实施、柏林冷战和Vergangenheitspolitik(过去的政治)放在一起,证明了以国家为中心的历史概念的延续,在很大程度上是由于法官希望减轻他们的重大工作量,并在没有政治行为者干预的情况下工作。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
42
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信