Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Switzerland
March 18 2007
Bergier saddened by lack of political feedback
Five years after the publication of his report on Switzerland during
the Second World War, Jean:François Bergier says he is disappointed
by the lack of reaction.
Bergier, president of the Independent Commission of Experts (ICE)
which prepared the text, told swissinfo that it seemed that
politicians had lost interest and avoided public debate on the
findings.
The ICE, which included Swiss and foreign historians, was appointed
by the government in December 1996 to investigate neutral
Switzerland’s role in the Nazi period from a historical and legal
point of view.
The decision followed immense pressure from at home and abroad that
centred on Swiss ties with Germany at that time, Switzerland’s
wartime refugee policy, and the money deposited in Switzerland by
Nazi victims.
The Swiss historian handed in his final report, a summary of 27
volumes, on March 22, 2002.
swissinfo: It is five years since you handed in the "Bergier Report"
to the Swiss authorities. What were your feelings at the time?
Jean:François Bergier: There was immense relief at having completed
the difficult work on time and a feeling of collective pride for the
team, which included about 100 people. At the same time, there was a
feeling of incompleteness because we had to leave some problems out
because they were not in our mandate.
We believed we had done honourable work. We were expecting more
discussion or even unfair criticism, which was not the case apart
from a few hardliners. But this remained marginal.
swissinfo: And how did you feel as a Swiss citizen?
J.:F.B.: My first disappointment was noting that our civic mission no
longer interested the politicians, who had called for it in a kind of
panicky enthusiasm. They lost interest or avoided the public debate
that had been promised.
But interest among the public was very lively. The Swiss needed to
know, especially the young. In the months that followed, there were
many debates in venues that were at times bursting at the seams with
people. It was impressive. And there was a travelling exhibition
presenting our work which had considerable success.
swissinfo: It could not have been easy to settle down to work in such
an emotional climate.
J.:F.B.: We were under pressure from start to finish, but in
different ways. At the beginning, we were urged to speed up our work
and there were attempts to dictate our conclusions. But in the end,
the opposite happened when we were told not to advance anything that
was compromising.
swissinfo: There was also pressure from abroad.
J.:F.B.: On that score the pressure dropped very quickly in 1998
after the $1.25 billion (SFr1.52 billion) settlement between Swiss
banks and representatives of Jewish plaintiffs in New York.
swissinfo: Did the report manage to reconcile the Swiss with their
past?
J.:F.B.: I simply hope to have made them aware of their past, of the
fact that their country was not quite as spotless as some had
maintained. We had to find the fair view of reality : between the
rosy picture [of Switzerland] some had tried to promote during the
Cold War and the criticism which arose in some circles from the
1970s.
It has to be said that the least issue surrounding the report always
provoked controversy. There were plenty of opposing books, pamphlets
and articles published, particularly by those who defended the rosy
picture of Switzerland. Then came the publication last year of a good
schoolbook which put everything into context and that aroused renewed
controversy.
swissinfo: Did the report point out any institutional deficiencies
which in your view still exist?
J.:F.B.: I would not speak of bitterness, but let us say that I found
it a pity to see that some deficiencies we pointed out were not taken
into consideration. At a time of war or crisis there can be friction
between the political authorities and those who run the economy.
There is also the question of the government’s powers because
constitutionally they are not clear.
And above all there’s the issue of Switzerland’s historical
responsibility. You have to be responsible for your past. On that
condition you can face the future clearly and calmly.
swissinfo: As a historian, how do you react to the recent trial of
Doðu Perinçek, the Turkish historian fined in Lausanne for his
revisionist views on the Armenian genocide?
J.:F.B.: I think a historian can be mandated, like I was, to shed
light on a number of problems. But he has to keep his independence. I
am very concerned about any legislation that gags historians if they
say something which is not politically correct, even if they can
prove it.
Of course you have to avoid spreading false revisionist ideas that
are insulting to the victims. But historians have to remain free so
as to guarantee that their work is solid. It is up to them to make
sure they remain honest. It’s a question of professional ethics.
It is always very delicate when a historian is called to give
testimony in a trial. When a judge has to make a judgement on a
historian, it can become dangerous.
swissinfo:interview: Isabelle Eichenberger