“The question of the value we place on human rights is a central issue”
Gregor Spuhler has headed up the Archives of Contemporary History (AfZ), home to important historical resources, for 18 years. In this interview, he talks about what he thinks about Nazi comparisons and why Switzerland needs a memorial for the victims of National Socialism right now.?
You’re a historian. Wasn’t it strange for you to come to a university of natural sciences and technology?
Gregor Spuhler: No, not at all. I was already familiar with the Archives of Contemporary History – mainly through my work on the Bergier report – but I hadn’t realised what it would mean to become part of the esteemed ETH Zurich. One of its many benefits is that people and organisations are much more willing to entrust their private documents to us because they generally trust ETH Zurich.
The AfZ have resources of both national and international significance. Is there an archive that you find particularly fascinating?
We have minutes from the assessments of over 3,000 Swiss leaders collected over a 40-year period. These are not publicly accessible due to privacy reasons, but I am not interested in judging who performed well and who did not. What interests me much more is the question of what psychology and economics regarded as “good leadership” at different times – and also how people believed they could put that to the test.
The AfZ receive 600 to 800 enquiries from historians each year. Has interest in history increased?
Using an archive will never become a mass phenomenon. Poring through files comprising countless documents that are difficult to understand at first glance is hard work. But I’m always fascinated by what an intense study of these resources reveals. We offer workshops about refugee history for school groups, for example. At these workshops, pupils read letters written by a border patrol officer to his wife, describing his experiences at the Swiss border in 1943. He had to follow the order to refuse entry to all refugees, knowing at the same time that the lives of these persecuted people were in acute danger. Initially, he turned a few away, before he couldn’t bear it any longer and managed to save them. What did that mean for him? And for those who had already been turned away? The pupils understand that he could have taken many different actions and discuss them.
This raises the question: can we learn from history?
I distinguish between history and the past. We’ll never be able to fully grasp the past; history is a way of presenting it. It’s about how we interpret it. But when we explore certain questions about the past in depth, we can find mechanisms that are also useful for the present.
Could you give us an example?
When governments or societies seek to eliminate certain groups of people, history demonstrates the key mechanisms used: they detain, concentrate and deport them. Despite vastly different historical contexts, the range of actions appears limited. Examining the resources involved reveals how these mechanisms operate and what they aim to achieve. We observe that mass deportations in the past often resulted in catastrophic outcomes.
Is it possible to compare past mechanisms, as you mentioned, to those of today? Comparisons with the Nazis are currently very popular.
Of course, we have to compare! The key is how appropriate the comparisons are. No situations are exactly the same in history, as many parameters change. However, it is only through comparison that we can identify differences, similarities and shared features.
Comparisons with the Nazis serve as a good example. Theory outlines various elements of fascist rule. It certainly makes sense to see if we recognise such elements. However, even if there are similarities, it doesn’t necessarily mean it is fascism. The comparison, however, heightens our awareness that we should avoid heading in that direction in the first place.
About
Gregor Spuhler was born in Laufenburg (canton of Aargau), Switzerland, in 1963, and studied history and German studies in Basel, Switzerland, and G?ttingen, Germany. From 1997 to 2001, the historian served as one of the project managers and co-authors of the external page Bergier report, which examined the amount and location of assets that found their way to Switzerland during the Second World War. In 2007, he became Head of the Archives of Contemporary History (AfZ) at ETH Zurich. Switzerland’s refugee history and oral history were Gregor Spuhler’s main interests, and he authored numerous articles on these topics.
Is that why you’re campaigning to have a memorial erected for the Swiss victims of National Socialism?
Nazi Germany’s propaganda promoted a racially pure ethnic community, ostracised Jews and numerous other minorities, displaced and deported them, and used escalating violence during the war to murder them systematically. After 1945, the global community’s response to these crimes was clear: they established the protection of individuals and minorities by enshrining human rights in law and expanding international law.
Nowadays, I observe that these values are increasingly being called into question, even in democratic nations. The rights of minorities appear to matter less. The significance of international law seems to be declining at a rapid pace. That is why I believe Switzerland would be well advised to consciously take a stand right now and remember the victims of those dark times. The central issue is how we treat vulnerable minorities in our society and the value we place on human rights.
You were in the public eye last year because you wrote a report, questioning whether there had been antisemitic aspects in Switzerland’s Raiffeisen movement between 1880 and 1950. Is the work of historians becoming increasingly political?
Academia has always operated within a political environment and always will. However, I argue that we should focus on the differences: academia asks questions free from any bias and seeks verifiable answers. Politics seeks to shape the community’s present based on a power structure.
Our work on the Raiffeisen movement serves as a good example of this. We were able to more clearly identify the antisemitism of the German founder Friedrich Wilhelm Raiffeisen within a historical context and demonstrate that antisemitism was widespread, even within the Raiffeisen movement in Switzerland. At the same time, we found no evidence in the archives indicating that Raiffeisen banks had barred Jews from becoming members or had attempted to squeeze Jewish livestock traders or moneylenders out of the market.
So, what does that mean now with respect to politics?
Whether Raiffeisenplatz in St Gallen should be renamed or not is a political question. We’re not making any recommendation on the matter, only laying the groundwork for a historically informed political debate.
You’re retiring now – what are your plans?
I’ll probably do some things that I haven’t had time for in recent years. Oral history – especially the life experiences of immigrants and the Swiss memorial for the victims of National Socialism – will probably keep me pretty busy.
Archives of Contemporary History
The Archives of Contemporary History (AfZ) collect the legacies and testimonies of natural persons and the archives of private organisations that are of nationwide importance and document the history of Switzerland. The collection focuses on political and economic history as well as on contemporary Jewish history.