The event, consisting of a public roundtable discussion and an academic symposium, marked the seventieth anniversary of the beginning of the talks between representatives of the Federal Republic of Germany, the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany and Israel to negotiate reparations (Wiedergutmachung, in German; Shilumim, in Hebrew) in Kasteel Oud-Wassenaar (Netherlands) in 1952.1 The organisation of the event stemmed from the need to address a twofold challenge. First, several important historical documents and testimonies have only recently become accessible for researchers, thus allowing for a granular understanding of both the history of the negotiations and their aftermath – including the consequences for Holocaust survivors and their families across three generations, and beyond. Second, the restitution, compensation and indemnification measures that followed the negotiations in Wassenaar are frequently (and increasingly) referred to as a “model”, in both academic and public discourse – Why? And with what implications? The anniversary of the beginning of those difficult, and ground-breaking, negotiations provided an analytic opportunity to reflect on the history of the negotiations that took place in Wassenaar over the spring and summer of 1952, and their contested legacy up to this day.2

The speakers and participants re-examined the 1952 Wassenaar negotiations blending perspectives from history, religion, law, and international relations. Wassenaar 1952 has often been studied, rightly, as a key turning point in the history of German-Jewish-Israeli relations, and as an important milestone in the development of compensation legislation and practice in the early 1950s. But those negotiations also took place in a fraught political context – one that was characterised, at local, transnational, and international levels by serious tensions and conflicting interpretations about how to deal with the recent past. By studying Wassenaar 1952 as a platform for the creation of a new international practice to address serious harm, the conference participants worked to historicise the notion of reparations (Wiedergutmachung/Shilumim) and reflect on the legacy of those talks, exactly seventy years on.

Chaired by JACCO PEKELDER (Münster), the opening roundtable event aimed at the broader public was held in Kasteel Oud-Wassenaar, where the negotiations took place. In her opening remarks, LORENA DE VITA (Utrecht) highlighted how the negotiations paved the way for a new understanding of reparations in international relations. The introductory statements further showed how ground-breaking the 1952 agreement was, given the absence of legal precedents and the fact that none of the negotiating parties had existed when the crimes were committed.

MORITZ SCHMID-DRECHSLER (The Hague) characterised the Wassenaar negotiations as a crucial turning point for German-Israeli relations. AVIGAIL ZIPORA FRISCH BEN AVRAHAM (The Hague) followed the roundtable via a digital connection. IDO DE HAAN (Utrecht) argued that the talks restored agency to all parties. Rabbi SHMUEL KATZMAN (The Hague) noted the negotiators’ choice of the hidden, discreet location of Wassenaar, and explained why the very word Shilumim provoked controversy on the Jewish side of negotiations before discussing how reparations relate to Tikkun – a belief in Judaism about our responsibility to mend a fractured world.

The public debate that followed touched upon the role and considerations of the Netherlands when hosting the negotiations in 1952; the protest of the Arab League and some of its key members with reference to the question of reparations for Palestinian refugees of the 1948–1949 War of Independence/Nakba; and it contextualised the relevance that the history of the 1952 Wassenaar negotiations still has today. The discussion set a bold and stimulating beginning for the academic conference over the next two days.

Lorena De Vita opened the conference stressing the importance of reassessing the 1952 Wassenaar negotiations from new perspectives, employing new methodologies and by creating a dialogue between disciplines that usually study them separately. She also addressed the necessity to examine the legacy of the negotiations and their aftermath, seven decades on.

The keynote lecture of CONSTANTIN GOSCHLER (Bochum) followed. The lecture paid heed to the exceptional nature of the Wassenaar negotiations and the special nature of the Jewish pursuit of reparations. A central concept employed to understand how the Wassenaar negotiations came to fruition was that of “communicative silence”; the need for some key, purposeful discoursive omissions to achieve the outcome intended.

The first workshop of the conference set out to reassess the history and politics of the Wassenaar negotiations. KATHRIN BACHLEITNER (Oxford) began by discussing questions of memory and atonement and how these played out in 1952 in the Federal Republic of Germany. She highlighted the pragmatism which turned out to be essential in facilitating the negotiations and the subsequent signing of the Luxembourg agreement. ELDAD BEN-AHARON (Groningen) examined the political rivalry between Menachem Begin and David Ben Gurion in Israel and how this played out in the run-up to, and during, the 1952 negotiations; Ben-Aharon used the framework of the “politics of emotions” to analyse the historical evidence, suggesting that both politicians appeal to the emotions of the members of their political base. The presentation of GIDEON REUVENI (Sussex) asked an important question: “who was not at Wassenaar?” and detailed how controversial the composition of the Israeli, JCC, and German delegations was at that time.

In the second workshop, five panellists proceeded to trace the legal and historical trajectories leading up to, and emerging from, the Wassenaar negotiations. LINDA KINSTLER (Berkeley) located legal oblivion in ‘a paradoxical place’ between forgetfulness and memory and connected the histories of legal oblivion to the history of the Wassenaar negotiations. RONALD W. ZWEIG (New York) contextualised the history and work of the Claims Conference. In particular, Zweig examined the response to the 1951 Israeli note and the lead-up to the Wassenaar negotiations. WOUTER VERAART (Amsterdam) stressed that the year 1952 witnessed a paradigm shift in Western European property restitution rights more broadly. JOSÉ BRUNNER (Tel Aviv) and IRIS NACHUM (Jerusalem) concluded by tracing the emergence of the “fictional expellee”, a new legal construction, outlining key legal categories – and their contradictions – that emerged in the wake of the 1952 negotiations.

The second keynote lecture of the conference was delivered by SUSAN SLYOMOVICS (Los Angeles). Slyomovics, drawing upon her expertise in the field of reparations, shared the story of her mother, Vera Slyomovics, and grandmother, Gizella Elefant Hollander. Both were former inmates of a Buchenwald satellite camp in Markkleeberg and Holocaust survivors, who took very different – in fact, opposing – attitudes towards reparations. She contrasted her mother’s refusal of Germany’s “blood money” with her grandmother’s pursuit of the reparations for which she was eligible. During the ensuing question and answer session, the participants reflected on the importance to consider diverse identities - such as survivor, slave labourer or prisoner of war - in reparations proceedings, both linguistically and practically, to facilitate inclusion and acknowledgement.

The second day of the conference started with a workshop on the redefinition of reparations in the twentieth century. HANCO JÜRGENS (Amsterdam) discussed the restitution of furniture and possessions to the Jewish community in Amsterdam. During the Nazi occupation of the Netherlands, a massive infrastructure was set up to organise the looting of Jewish homes, and this issue – robbery and plunder - should also be investigated further. MARIEKE OPREL (Nijmegen) reflected on the role of the Inter-Allied Reparation Agency in the early 1950s to shed light on the understanding of enemy property, restitution, and reparation after the Second World War and how these played out during the 1952 negotiations in Wassenaar. Chairman Ido de Haan (Utrecht) alerted the participants to an important point in this regard: multiple trajectories of reparations and waves of reparations occurred side by side and interacted with each other – in the 1950s and beyond.

The fourth workshop, chaired by NANCI ADLER (Amsterdam) dealt with reparations in an African, South-East Asian, and European context. HENNING MELBER (Uppsala) discussed the contested case of German reparations to Namibia, by highlighting the pitfalls of the Joint Declaration Agreement, showing how colonial thinking and asymmetrical power relations are still at work today. HANNAH GOOZEE (Utrecht) continued with a discussion on the politics of psychological trauma and the analysis of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, arguing for the impossibility of talking about healing in South Africa without talking about reparations. In particular, Goozee reflected on her own experience of having been asked to present about the German Holocaust reparations while conducting fieldwork in South Africa. Next, NICOLE IMMLER (Utrecht) argued that we should focus more on the shortcomings of the Wiedergutmachung model, especially when referring to calls for reparations for victims of slavery that are based on the reparations ‘model’ resulting from the Wassenaar negotiations. The case studies presented in her talk showed that, to a certain extent, the Wassenaar 1952 negotiations can be considered a precedent in other contexts.

The last panel addressed key, broader issues, including the long-term mental consequences of persecution; the role and involvement (or lack thereof) of victims in reparations processes; and the lessons – if any – that can be drawn from the Wassenaar 1952. LUKAS WELZ (Berlin) discussed how trauma as well as mental and physical suffering were only recognised by politics and humanitarian aid programs much later in time and did not feature during the 1952 talks – neither at the negotiating table nor in public discourse. BRIANNE MCGONINGLE LEYH (Utrecht) then looked back at the important steps that have been taken since, and thanks to, the negotiations in Wassenaar, especially from the perspective of international law and transitional justice. Leyh argued for the importance of transformative reparations, those that can occur only if structural changes take place and victims play a role in the decision-making process. LUKE MOFFETT (Belfast) identified the “forgotten lessons” of Wassenaar, arguing that reparations were – and still are – often also a matter of tenacity, and timing. Moffett stated that there are few long-term analyses of the impact of reparations on the achievement of their goals, and questioned whether Wassenaar 1952, in their case, had succeeded in its objectives.

The final discussion of the conference was chaired by Lorena De Vita and STEPHAN PARMENTIER (Leuven). Parmentier reflected on the trajectory of the conference and how an event such as that of the negotiations that took place in Wassenaar is still relevant today for discussions in the field of transnational justice and reparations proceeding – not only within the field of Holocaust studies, but also beyond it. The principles of autonomy and neutrality were discussed in relation to different victim groups' right to reparations, and Parmentier also pointed out how, at times, corrective justice can have unintended exclusionary effects. Nanci Adler noted that contemporary approaches to reparations should not only be dictated by ‘Western’ experiences. Constantin Goschler highlighted that we still have much to learn when studying the course and aftermath of the Wassenaar negotiations and their outcome, especially given that now – three generations on – we can also have more insight into their long-term impact and consequences. Lorena De Vita concluded the session by stressing the need to engage in a study of the course and aftermath of the Wassenaar negotiations, including their “global echoes” in other parts of the world, and at different times. Many of the questions that were addressed in Wassenaar continue to echo in instances of human suffering and subsequent restitution, compensation, and indemnification efforts.

Overall, the participants agreed, the time is ripe for a re-assessment of the negotiations that took place in Wassenaar in 1952, and their aftermath. Those negotiations marked a crucial turning point in the history, law, and politics of the twentieth century. Its contents were unprecedented, and its consequences significant, even though justice remained elusive.

Conference overview:

Opening Event
Chair: Lorena De Vita (Utrecht University)

Jacco Pekelder (Münster): Moderation

Lorena De Vita (Utrecht): Welcome Opening

Moritz Schmid-Drechsler (The Hague), Ido de Haan (Utrecht), Shmuel Katzman (The Haag): Speeches and Keynotes

Public Debate and Closing Remarks
Jacco Pekelder (Münster): Moderation

Academic Conference
Chair: Beatrice de Graaf (Utrecht)

Lorena De Vita (Utrecht): Why revisit the 1952 Wassenaar negotiations today?

Constantin Goschler (Bochum): From Genocide to Politics. The Wassenaar Negotiations and the Measurement of the Unmeasurable

Workshop 1: Re-assessing Wassenaar 1952
Chair: James Kennedy (Utrecht)

Kathrin Bachleitner (Oxford): The Reparation Agreement. A Unique Step in the History of International Relations?

Eldad Ben-Aharon (Groningen/Frankfurt): Wassenaar Negotiations and the ‘Politics of Emotions’: Opposition-Coalition Power Relations in Israel, 1952

Gideon Reuveni (Sussex): Who was not in Wassenaar? Victims of National Socialism and the Luxembourg Agreement

Workshop 2: Wassenaar, 1952 – Looking back, looking ahead
Chair: Lorena De Vita (Utrecht)

Linda Kinstler (Berkeley): “An Incomplete Liquidation of the Past”: The Unfinished Work of the Reparations Commission

Ronald W. Zweig (New York): German Reparations, the Jewish World and the Origins of the Claims Conference

Wouter Veraart (Amsterdam): 1952 as a Turning Point in the History of Restitution of Property Rights in Western Europe

José Brunner (Tel Aviv) and Iris Nachum (Hebrew University of Jerusalem): German Legal Categories and the Jewish Struggle for Compensation Following the Luxembourg Agreement

Susan Slyomovics (Los Angeles ): Three Generations, One Wiedergutmachung

Chair: Stephan Parmentier (Leuven)

Workshop 3: Re-defining Reparations in the Twentieth Century
Chair: Ido de Haan (Utrecht)

Hanco Jürgens (Amsterdam): Renewed Interest in the Looted Homes of Amsterdam Jews. Recovered Memory of the ‘M-Aktion’

Marieke Oprel (Radboud): The Inter-Allied Reparation Agency and the Negotiations of 1952

Workshop 4: Beyond Holocaust Reparations: Overlaps and Dissonance
Chair: Nanci Adler (Amsterdam)

Henning Melber (Uppsala): Germany and Reparations Today: Namibia Now

Hannah Goozee (Utrecht): Re-Assessing Reparations: The Case of South Africa

Nicole Immler (Utrecht): Holocaust Reparations: Scrutinising ‘the model’ in Transitional Justice

Workshop 5: Negotiating Redress
Chair: Nicole Immler (Utrecht)

Lukas Welz (Berlin): A Present Past: Including Long-Term Consequences of Persecution in Reparation Processes

Brianne McGonigle Leyh (Utrecht): Intersectionality and Transformative Reparations

Luke Moffett (Belfast): The Forgotten Lessons of Negotiated Redress: Wassenaar, the Struggle for Reparations and Human Rights

Lorena De Vita (Utrecht) and Stephan Parmentier (Leuven): Formulating Research Desiderata

Notes:
1 More on the differences between the terms Wiedergutmachung and Shilumim can be read in the following report by Axel Frohn, “Holocaust and “Shilumim”: The Policy of “Wiedergutmachung” in the Early 1950s,” German Historical Institute, Occasional Paper 2 (1991), 11, available at: https://www.ghi-dc.org/publication/holocaust-and-shilumim-the-policy-of-wiedergutmachung-in-the-early-1950s (17.08.2022).
2 A shorter version of this report has been published in Dutch, on Historici.nl, the website of the Royal Netherlands Historical Society (Koninklijk Nederlands Historisch Genootschap). Available at: https://www.historici.nl/wassenaar-1952-de-erfenis-van-het-baanbrekende-herstelbetalingsproces-na-de-holocaust/?type=bijdrage (31.03.2022).