61340 Vorabseiten_e - Unabhängige Expertenkommission Schweiz

eplaced it with «Wiedergutmachung» (making amends for something; literally
«making good again»), which was almost the exact equivalent in meaning but
erased the negative memory of an unjust obligation in favour of a positive and
legitimate duty. However, this semantic transfer did not go unchallenged. The
lawyer Hans Keilson considered this concept of «Wiedergutmachung» «fateful»
as it tended to substitute material debt for moral guilt. Moreover, other authors,
including Norbert Frei observed that former Nazi officials also felt they were
«victims» and accordingly claimed «Wiedergutmachung» which they in fact
received in the early days of the Federal Republic. Conversely, Germans opposed
to any form of compensation protested for many years against the contractual
arrangements entered into «within the framework of the so-called ‹Wiedergutmachung›».
17 Criticism of the term was therefore used against the principle that
it defined. The term did not therefore satisfy everyone but it eventually entered
the vocabulary of science and politics and has become a fixed element of the
German language. 18
Still, caution is called for: neither «Wiedergutmachung» (in German) nor «reparations»
or its equivalent in other languages can or should be regarded as a
monetary settlement of the past: paying one’s debt is neither a substitute for
remembering nor for reviewing and probing the past. Today, «making amends»
for material injustice and «restoring» of memory are equally important to the
kind of justice that is required.
Switzerland in the process of «Wiedergutmachung»
In Switzerland, there were strong objections to the use of the term «Wiedergutmachung»
after 1945. This became apparent during the discussions of 1962
concerning the «Registration Decree» («Meldebeschluss»), the resolution to
identify dormant accounts in Swiss banks. Addressing a National Council
committee meeting, Federal Councillor Ludwig von Moos (Catholic Conservative
People’s Party) denied that there was any moral obligation on Switzerland
in the sense of «Wiedergutmachung». He stated that:
«reference was made here and there in this connection to ‹Wiedergutmachung›.
This expression is also misleading. Switzerland has nothing to
make amends for [wiedergutzumachen] either to the victims of Nazi persecution
or to Jewish or other organizations and certainly not to the State of
Israel. This observation must be stated unequivocally.» 19
Social Democrat National Councillor Harald Huber, who had proposed the
Registration Decree in 1957, took a quite similar tone: «Actually, Switzerland
has nothing to make amends for and countries are not entitled to make any
428