Stockholm International ForumForum On The HolocaustCombating IntoleranceTruth, Justice and ReconciliationPreventing Genocide
You are here: 2000 / Plenary Sessions: Messages and speeches / Plenary Session 2 / Speech by the Minister of State at the Federal Chancellery of Germany, Michael Naumann

Countries and organizations

Conference documentation

Conference programme

Speech by Professor Israel Gutman
Message by the President of the Government of the Republic of Macedonia, Ljubco Georgievski
Message by the Co-Chairman of the Council of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Haris Siljadzic
Message by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, Walter Schwimmer
Message by the Minister of Justice of Norway, Odd Einar Dörum
Speech by Professor Ian Hancock
Speech by Professor Jerzy Einhorn
Speech by the Minister of State at the Federal Chancellery of Germany, Michael Naumann

Speech by the Minister of State at the Federal Chancellery of Germany, Michael Naumann
Naumann, Michael

Speech by the Minister of State at the Federal Chancellery of Germany

Ladies and Gentlemen,
Let me start by pointing out a dilemma, well aware of the disquiet that comes over everyone thinking about the murdered Jews of Europe. We want to discuss the political consequences of the Holo-caust – and in the present this denotes especially the ethical consequences – but we have not yet completed the diagnosis of its causes. Thus complains one of our most gifted young academics, Ulrich Herbert: "As there is no theory of the Holocaust [...], only the repeated attempt of coming to terms with the reality of what happened can satisfy our need of finding an explanation. Merely stating the in-comprehensibility gets us [...] nowhere." This is, of course, the lament of a historian for whom the horrific data stored in images and texts cannot provide the answers he seeks. The Holocaust is in danger of becoming merely a metaphor of the inexplicable. We know today that the shocking confrontation with the “ur”-crime of the century has not produced what could have been expected: a universal reconsideration of the loss of humanity as manifested in the extermination camps of the SS. This disappointment has less to do with the inadequate prosecution of criminal acts, but rather with the unanswered inquiry into their intellectual and societal roots.

What is at the heart of this humanity, which was to be destroyed in the Holocaust? Who exactely was the object of this furious aggression? These are the questions we should consider further. We are at a loss. Eberhard Jäckel, a nestor of Hitler research, focused this sense of helplessness directly on the German dictator: "We will have to devote our attention to Hitler once again. [...] Hitler stood alone at the top!". But, then, who were the many other murderers? Who were the representatives of the law, the pastors, the teachers, the functional elite of the Third Reich? And what were their motives?

Jäckel’s world-famous German colleague, the Hitler biographer Joachim Fest, stated with resigna-tion that the question of the nature and origin of Hitler's own anti-Semitism is "unanswered and perhaps unanswerable".

Fest now suspects that “Evil itself” manifested itself in Hitler in order to remind the thoroughly secular world of its bloody existence. It was obvious, however, that this theoretical approach would soon be ironically called “metaphysical” and subjected to an unspoken ban, since the world is indeed still secularized, just as the scientific societal research acting within it. It was empirical behavioral science that taught us to conclude from the “so-called Evil” back to scientifically readily accessible mechanism of evolution.

Nonetheless, “Time Magazine”, in a special edition of December 31, 1999, entitled Person of the Century, stated that Hitler was proof "that evil does exist", following Ron Rosenbaum’s argument in Explaining Hitler. Although Yehuda Bauer, to whom we owe a moving speech in the German Bundestag on the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, does not think much of such observations, he is equally disquieted by the unsatisfactory state of research: "Hitler is explicable in principle, but that does not mean that he has been explained", he told Ron Rosenbaum in 1998.

Other authors (e.g. Daniel Goldhagen 1996) claim that if “Hitler” cannot supply answers to the “why”, then it may still be possible to say something conclusive by way of a character analysis of the German people. If the Germans really were the cruellest and most anti-Semitic group of people in history then the Holocaust is easily explained. It may be that no people has ever been crueller or more anti-Semitic than the Germans. However, there is no comparative research on cruelty which could affirm this point. Most of the history of man remains obscure, the rituals of human sacrifice and infanticide are at best considered in the realm of archeological anthropology. Once again, the question demanding to be asked is: What are the intellectual roots of such modern, technically perfected cruelty? What is the core of its inhumanity?

What are parents supposed to tell their children, teachers their pupils, professors their students, journal-ists their readers and politicians their voters, if even our best experts can’t give convincing answers?

Gunnar Heinsohn, another genocide scholar, has been seeking a way out of this dilemma. He is engaged in a discipline that could be called critical intellectual history, which has gone somewhat out of style. “Critical” is his attempt to steer clear of any form of fundamentalist transcendentalism, a kind of negative theology. Heinsohn reminds us that Western civilization rests on four pillars - two of them Jewish and two Greek. From Judaism we inherited the truth of sanctity of life and monotheism, and from ancient Greece the concept of property and monogamy. These pillars have been shaken many times throughout history. However, only Hitler's Germany deliberately set out – by secret “Reichserlaß” as well as public law – to abolish the most important of these principles, sanctity of life. The Third Reich engaged in a pagan crucible against two religions – Jewish as well as Christian. The manifestation of such an unholy force in a technically advanced, highly armed modernity has thoroughly darkenend our view of our own civilisation.

The destruction of Judaism was aimed towards eliminating its religion altogether. Without any qualms of conscience the Germans were to be enabled to exterminate the hundred million people living in the Slav Lebensraum as far as the Urals, as well as to unscrupulously eliminate severely wounded veterans and other disabled or “useless” Germans at home. Judaism, both as an idea and as a group of people professing it, would never again be allowed to “undermine” the German will to kill. Hitler therefore decided initially to remove the Jews from the German sphere of influence and subsequently to destroy them physically.

Viewing matters from this perspective makes it clear why non-Jews who defended the Jewish legacy of the sanctity of life within the Christian religion were persecuted, as well – however, only if they took an active stance and were visibly “verjudet”, that is “under the influence” of Judaism. Jews, on the other hand, would not be spared even if they renounced their religion. 19th century ideological rascism was compounded with the pagan promise of salvation that was the basis of National Socialism. Thus, on July 21, 1941, with the mass extermination of Jews under way for a little less than a month (June 25, 1941), Hitler urged the Fascist Croatian Minister of War, Kvaternik: "If just one state (of the Axis) tolerates a Jewish family for whatever reason this would become the virus starting a new infection".

On September 23, 1941, Wilhelm Keitel, head of the supreme command of the Wehrmacht, described the killing of captive commissars (members of the Communist party in the Soviet army) as the "extermination of an ideology" of which he "approved" and which he "condoned". More than two million prisoners of war died in the hands of the Wehrmacht – shot, starved, weakened by sickness. Eugen Stähle, ministerial superintendent of the Württemberg Grafeneck clinic where disabled Germans were gassed beginning September 1939, blew off the Stuttgart Church Commissioner Reinhold Sautter on 4 December 1940 who had reproached him in a private conversation with the killing of persons supposedly "unfit to live". Stähle coolly re-plied: "The fifth commandment: Thou shalt not kill, is not a commandment from God but merely a Jewish invention". The prohibition of killing, including children, disabled persons, the sick and the old, was indeed an important Jewish contribution to civilization. It marked the departure from the archaic ritual of human sacrifice. In short, the extermination of the Jewish belief that the protection of life is the highest human principle was the ideological terrorist epicenter of the Holocaust. Every historian of National Socialism could collect countless quotes to affirm this. However, Hitler’s contemporaries – that is to say, his victims – knew exactely what to name the inexplicable origin of terror in the place where it happened: the evil of Auschwitz. Their experience within the “heart of darkness” explained itself in their unspeakable sorrow, their prolonged silence. A young Jewish woman, walking naked past a guilty witness of a mass murder, pointed to her body with the words “eighteen years”. What she meant to say was: My innocent life, my life.

If there is some truth to these observations, then Hitler did not by any means regard himself as the greatest criminal or the most excessive violator in history of the Jewish principle of the sanctity of life but, rather, as its systematic eliminator. If Hitler had succeeded, he would have created a right to exterminate a people and overturned established international law to that end. The first assemblies of the United Nations, at least, seem to have understood his intentions in this way. It is well known that during its sessions at the Palais Chaillot in Paris in December 1948, it built two trailblazing monuments to the victims of the Holocaust in only two days. They did so by laying down new international laws. Missing, though, was the necessary mechanism of sanctions.

Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of December 10, 1948: "Everyone has the right to life!" provided a firm answer to the historic National Socialist attempt to abolish the prohibition of killing. In the second sentence of the Preamble, the Holocaust is identified as the "barbarous act" which was the immediate reason for drawing up the Declaration.

The Oslo Nobel Prize Committee awarded René Samuel Cassin (1887 - 1976) the Peace Prize in 1968. This Sephardi Jew and French lawyer was essentially the author of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. He had been able to elude Hitler's Germany by fleeing to London. His law did not immediately alter the course of world events but he did formulate an aspiration to usher in a new era which has never been seriously called into question since – the ethical renewal of a civilized community of nations. For it was not only Germans who were again required to respect the commandment "Thou shalt not kill", but all peoples on earth.

The United Nations erected its second monument to the victims of the Holocaust on December 9, 1948, one day before the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide contains a detailed list of the Nazis' methods of extermination:

(2a) Killing members of the group (i.e. gassing, shooting, injections);
(2b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group (i.e. imprisonment in a concentration camp, medical experiments, etc.);
(2c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physi-cal destruction in whole or in part (i.e. ghettos, extermination through work, death marches, etc.);
(2d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group (i.e. compulsory steriliza-tions);
(2e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group (i.e. "Germanization" of blond Slav children).

Not only Germans but humanity entire was now prohibited from using any of these methods of ex-termination. No nation or dictator anywhere in the world should ever again claim for themselves the right to commit genocide. What Cassin did for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Raphael Lemkin (1900 - 1959) achieved for the Genocide Convention. The Polish lawyer and Jew of Ashke-nazi descent escaped from Hitler's Germany over Stockholm and London to the safety of the United States. In 1943, he first gave a name to the crime against humanity for the Polish government in exile in London: Ludobójstwo (from lud = people and zabójstwo = murder). In 1944, he translated the Polish term into English as “genocide” (from the Greek genos = people and the Latin caedere = to kill; Raphael Lemkin 1944). Until then the world had made do with the 1915 term "crimes against humanity" which is wrongly translated into German as "Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit" (crimes against humaneness) although "Verbrechen gegen die Menschheit" (crimes against humanity) was meant.

Earlier, already on May 24, 1915, Britain, France and Russia described the genocide committed against Armenians as "new crimes of Turkey against humanity and civilization" and demanded that the Turks would be called to account. On April 10, 1919, following his conviction at the Istanbul Trials, Mehmet Kemal Bey, the chief administration officer of Bogazliyan, was the first person in history to be executed on the grounds of “crimes against humanity”. On October 12, 1942, the London International Assembly of international law experts recommended in the light of the extermination of Jews by Hitler's Germany that "crimes against mankind" be created as a new international crime. The French term "populicide" was occasionally used before the term of "genocide" was invented. It was coined by Gracchus Babeuf in 1795 and described the extermination of 117,000 farmers in the Vendée. This fertile area in western France did indeed remain practically uninhabited for 25 years.

The fact that Lemkin's Genocide Convention was adopted by the United Nations unanimously with 55:0:0 votes in 1948 had its price. Only "national, ethnical, racial or religious groups" (opening sentence of Article 2) are to be protected from killings. Political and economic groups are not mentioned. The millions of murdered owners of property, for example the so-called “kulaks”, in the Marxist-Leninist states of the 20th century were obviously not meant to be the focus of attention.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Seen from today, what is the impact of the Genocide Convention on the minorities it expressly protects? It is not easy to give an answer. Comparative research into genocide is not yet thirty years old. It did not begin systematically until 1972, with Gil Elliott’s The Twentieth Century Book of the Dead. In Canada and the USA, one or two-man institutes established by academic outsiders began to emerge at the end of the eighties. In Europe the first institute was established seven years ago at the University of Bremen, others followed. A comprehensive lexical survey, the Lexikon der Völkermorde (Encyclopaedia of Genocides), has only been available for two years now and even this must be regarded as incomplete. Even the author was not surprised that its publication did not have an immediate international effect.

Since the final capitulation of Hitler's Germany in May 1945, at least one hundred acts of genocide have been documented. The Tutsis, Kurds, Bosnians, Timorese and Chinese Indonesians, as well as the Dinka, Naga and Nuba Sudanese have even been hit on more than one occasion. In Brazil's Amazonian rain forest there were acts of genocide against fifteen aboriginal peoples between the sixties and the eighties. The population of the Cintas Largas, for example, was reduced from 10,000 to 500. Certainly, this people was small in number and practically unknown to us. However, its 95 % extermination rate means that its suffering remains tragically unprecedented!

After 1945, more than 14 million people were driven from their homes, among them 2.1 million German civilians in seven European countries [including the German Democratic Republic] were sent to their deaths. Swedish and Swiss journalists in particular reported on these horrors at the time. We Germans are still reluctant to mention those deaths in public – though we mourn them – due to the vague feeling that we deserved this revenge and to our determination not to set these deaths off against other crimes. However, silence does injustice to those Europeans and World War victors who called German war criminals to account after 1945 but did not resort to committing crimes against Germans. Our goal remains to emulate those who had foregone Revenge and embraced the Law.

Why was it possible for genocides to continue seemingly unhindered after Hitler’s suicide? Why could the powerful forces that defeated Germany and Tojo Hideki's Japan suddenly no longer be summoned? Why did the Nuremberg Trials from 1945 to 1946 and the Tokyo Trials from 1946 to 1948 remain without consequences, much like the Istanbul Trials from 1918 to 1920 at which the Young Turks were tried for the slaughter of Armenians and the Leipzig Trials of 1919 and 1920 against the German criminals of World War One?

The UN of 1945 very quickly evolved into a community of nations in which totalitarian and authoritarian regimes were a present and powerful minority. Important decisions could only be made by the five-strong Security Council. However, it would be too simple to point our fingers at this presence in the forum. Britain and France were involved in bloody colonial wars for many years, as well. The USA, the leading Western power, could not bring itself to ratify the 1948 UN Genocide Convention until 1989. What is more, the US was frequently hamstrung because it felt compelled to ally itself with genocidal authoritarian nations in the fight against Communist regimes. When faced with the necessity of making ethical choices, realpolitik usually opted for the pragmatism dictated by common interests. Political consciousness within democratic nations only changed through the images of their policies’ bloody consequences disributed by the mass media. The Vietnam War was decided on television.

For 45 years, the United Nations failed to implement the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, even in part. Not until 1993 were special courts estab-lished to punish the crimes committed in Yugoslavia and, later, Rwanda. It even took half a century, until July 1998, before a permanent United Nations International Criminal Court was approved. The fall of Communism in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union since 1989 has provided a degree of momentum. However, there is still precious little being done in the prevention of genocide. The international community witnessed the genocide committed against Tutsis in spring 1994 – “eyes wide shut”. Six times the UN Commander in Rwanda, General Romeo Dallaire (Canada), requested a 5000-strong unit (he already had 2700 troops at hand) in order to put a stop to the killing. His request was turned down in New York each time. Approximately 800,000 people were slaughtered between April 6 and May 5, 1994. Kofi Annan, Dallaire's superior in New York, subsequently expressed his deep regret. However, at the time the Security Council deliberately used the euphemism "civil war", presumably because the term "genocide" would have forced it to take action according to its own norms.

Half a decade later, in 1999, it was possible to end the genocide in Kosovo thanks to NATO, and in East Timor largely thanks to Western troops. Nonetheless, according to Carla del Ponte, Chief Prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague, more than 11,000 Albanians were murdered before the Serb with-drawal from Kosovo. In East Timor, more than 1000 people died within a few days and 70,000 homes, two thirds of all dwellings, burned down.

Moreover, UN mandates were not the driving force behind either of these interventions though almost 140 members have signed the Genocide Convention. They thus recognize "that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish" (Article 1 of the Convention).

All in all, however, the trailblazing conventions and legacy of 1948 remain largely unknown to politics and society even within Western democracies. It is barely acknowledged nowadays that their dissemination is a key task of education and cultural policy. How many schools teach their students the text of the Genocide Convention or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? How many of us gath-ered here today possess a firm grasp of these documents? Why not discuss the dignity of these laws as well as that of poetry? They open a window onto the better intellectual and juridical history of Europe – onto an era, in which the idea of political authority was bound to the constitutional belief that a representation of societal power is legitimized by a quality of leadership by virtue of the “religiosissimus iuris”.

We must embed the sacrosanctity of life in our education. Forgive a social democrat agnostic for speaking in this way, but the core belief of the Hebrew bible, that life and good should be identical, is indispensable for a genocide-free world civilization: "I call heaven and earth to witness this day: I have put before you life and death, blessing and curse. Choose Life – that you and your o ffspring shall live” Deuteronomy, The Fifth Book of Moses, 30:19). It does not require religious mystical experience to recognize that the departure from this truth has brought catastrophe upon the 20th century. It should not be solely left to theology or sunday sermons to inquire into the roots of this departure – not to economists and sociologists, either, however. There is no monopoly of interpretation. Humanity’s guilt of the Holocaust, however, places the necessity of reversal beyond any doubt.

The Federal Republic of Germany ratified the UN Genocide Convention on February 22, 1955. However, 44 years had to pass before it took part in an armed attempt to halt a genocide for the first time. Such abstinence, however, had its legitimate historical reasons. But on March 24, 1999, Federal Chancellor Gerhard Schröder stated the case for German participation in a NATO operation against Serbia/Yugoslavia which had already committed genocide previously: "There can be no doubt as to our determination to put an end to the carnage in Kosovo." The German Bundestag supported this conviction by majority vote. However, all of us mourned not only the murdered Albanians but all those who lost their lives in the 78-day NATO air strikes.

Genocide prevention worthy of its name must not wait until all it can do is put an end to killing through military sanctions. And yet to this very day there is not one international early-warning unit gathering and publicly disseminating warning signs of genocide. This is surprising, considering the following: On December 30, 1999, fol-lowing various US initiatives since 1996, the British science minister, Lord Sainsbury, announced the formation of a task force on providing early warning of asteroids and comets that pose a threat to earth. He said: "The risk of an asteroid or comet causing substantial damage is extremely remote. This is not something that people should lie awake at night worrying about. But we cannot ignore the risk, however remote, and a case can be made for monitoring the situation on an international basis". However, until now, the risk of genocide has been roughly one hundred times greater per century than that of a small asteroid entering the earth's atmosphere. Furthermore, it should be easier to prevent people from murdering each other than to avert a cosmic disaster. It will be interesting to see how far a bitterly needed genocide prevention lags behind asteroid early warning.

Most of the 100 acts of genocide recorded since 1944/45 did not become known to the world until they were under way or already over. Human rights organizations have attempted to fill this gap - with modest means and almost always without a firm framework for the often lifethreatening work carried out by their activists. Furthermore, the large number of these noble movements, as well as the rivalry among them, makes it more difficult for those under threat to know who to turn to.

International organizations and powerful nations have to date been reluctant to develop genocide “early warning” facilities – maybe because they do not want to be compelled to take military action on the strength of their findings. Even if we agree that in the future much swifter action must be taken, we know that permanent international forces would not be available tomorrow. But to delay developing an early warning institute for this reason is unreasonable. If such an institute were to predict a genocide that the international community then allowed to happen – and perhaps had to let happen based on specific political or strategic constraints or necessities –, cannot be a valid reason against establishing an early warning institute as such. One of the lessons of the Holocaust, at least, has entered historical literature – the national and international refusal to recognize the reality of state terror. The historian Walter Laqueur titled his book about the early knowledge of the West concerning the true dimension of the Holocaust “The Terrible Secret”. What would have happened, had the truth of Auschwitz, Sobibor, Chelmno or Treblinka not remained a “secret” after 1942?

Therefore, such an institute should be able to investigate thoroughly and not be compelled to hold back any information for fear of a potential obligation to intervene. It must be independent in order to do so. Surely the mere existence of such an institute would have an impact. Just like with a weather map, the public would be informed about impending danger on a regular basis. Those planning genocides – and they exist – would also be aware that their preparations have been registered.

In contrast to massacres, genocides cannot occur instantaneously. History demonstrates, according to Gunnar Heinsohn, that roughly one in four authoritar-ian/totalitarian nations or movements with a potential for genocide actually go on to kill. All nations with a potential for genocide should therefore be scanned for "red alert" signals to establish the probability of a genocide actually taking place. Here are six warning signs that are extremely difficult to conceal and have, each in its own way, already proven frighteningly accurate in predicting genocide: (i) registra-tion of the addresses and "labelling" of victims; (ii) propaganda in which the envisaged victims are portrayed as a deadly danger to the perpetrators; (iii) the replacement of high-ranking officers in the perpetrator group who are not willing to participate in the killing; (iv) the emergence of veiled terms (euphemisms) for planned killings, such as "ethnographic redevelopment" or "final solution" (Hitler Germany on Poland or the Jews): "ethnic cleansing" (in Yugoslavia since 1991) or even "civil war" (Hutus 1994 on the genocide of Tutsis or Serbia 1999 on Kosovo Albanians); (v) the establishment and training of special killer units (Cheka, SS, paramilitaries, etc. and (vi) the appearance of refugees without typical reasons for fleeing such as famine or natural disasters.

Since 1998, our government agency has been considering who could take this special monitoring role for the international community by establishing a genocide early-warning unit. We believe the victims of 1933-1945 would thus become a living legacy for the world conscience. Mourning and remembrance would be complemented by a contribution towards the prevention of new genocides. The Genocide Convention of 1948 could, no, must gain new influence. Without early warning there can never be effective prevention. The Holocaust conference in Stockholm reinforces the call for the establishment of such an institute on an international basis. A genocide watch institute should not be answerable to any one national authority. It would have to be financed by a foundation, thus guaranteeing its independence and trustworthiness. Perhaps an international body such as the OSCE could play a role in a genocide watch institute. There could perhaps be two or three early warning institutes in the world. In December 1999 the US State Department too, to the delight of our office, held a conference on how to recognize dangers early on. Clause 6 of the “Statement of Principles” states: “Governments are asked to designate one person or agency to coordinate information about atrocities in order to create an international network”.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

In the Holocaust, the dehumanization of politics under totalitarian terror became horrifically evident. Historical reflection cannot master the past – the past is over. Rather, the legacy of this genocide demands from the present an answer to the central question: What constitutes the dignity of humanity if not that of life? How can it be protected from future genocidal attempts? In the remembrance of the Holocaust we must find the right answer for politics and society of future history.

Thank you for listening.


Let me start with a few very personal remarks. First of all, I appreciate the opportunity to be able to talk to you and I appreciate the symbolic fact that I am able to talk to you at the conclusion of this extremely important conference.
Now to the personal remarks. A few days ago, at this conference, that is the opening day, I was asked by a French journalist: Aren’t you trying to turn the page in Germany? That is draw the famous Schluss-Strich, the summary, move on. In short, forget. And this is what I said to her: How can my generation forget, how can we turn the page? Half a year ago the bones of my father were unearthed on a meadow near Stalingrad. Parts of my family’s name disappeared from the graveyard in Keurten. They are now buried in America and England and elsewhere. How can Germany forget, as you pass through towns like Dachau, as you go to Goethe’s Weimar and look up the hill and see Buchenwald? As the name
Bergen-Belsen stands for what it stands indelibly? No. This is what I told her. We are not forgetting and it’s perfectly and well known to any sensible and intelligent intellectual, but not only those Germans, that the name of the Holocaust and the name of Germany would be linked for many, many centuries to come. I find it soothing and then sometimes also quite awkward and I don’t know what to think about it when at this conference fortuitously you speak of the Nazis, when in fact it was Germany. But I do not say this in a sense of self flatulation. That is not what remembrance is all about. This Government, my Government and my office have embarked on a new cultural of remembrance and I have just come from the groundbreaking of the Memorial to the murdered Jews of Europe in the center of Berlin. The memorial sites in East and West Germany will now be funded on a much larger scale by the Federal Government as well, and not only by the states, who according to their whims and political inclinations specifically in the early parts of our countries history looked at that duty, sometimes indifferently, but certainly not with the wholeheartedness we are now embarking on. But in general, as most of you who are experts here know very well, the history of the Holocaust in Germany and not only since that certainly amazing, groundbreaking event of the film in 19, I think, 74, has been a subject of intense, ??? pedagogical, political, cultural and literary debate. Now let me come to my speech, and I hope you will forgive me if I overdraw for 2 minutes.

Thank you.

>> Back to top


Opening Session: Messages and speeches

Plenary Sessions: Messages and speeches

Workshops, Panels and Seminars

Closing Session and Declaration

Other Activities

For information about this production and the Stockholm International Forum Conference Series please go to or contact Information Rosenbad, SE-103 33 Stockholm, Sweden