She actually wanted to “research the 18th century,” but was “first confronted with the totalitarian catastrophes of the 20th century, complete with millions of victims, destroyed cities, and book collections scattered to the four winds.” This is how the Swiss writer and scientist Vanessa de Senarclens describes her very practical experiences with Berlin’s libraries.
Books are often not where you think they are, many are still marked “Place: War Loss” and there are blank tabs. Catalogs had to be created over and over again, as political unrest made it seem necessary or appropriate. Sisyphus was a lucky man in comparison, writes Senarclens, who teaches at the Institute for Novel Studies at Berlin’s Humboldt University.
She analyzed the many dilemmas one encounters as a researcher in an article for an anthology she also edited. The book is titled “Books and their ways. Bibliomigration between Germany and Poland since 1939″ and brings together 17 contributions from Polish and German researchers.
In their articles all the authors report on the various difficulties that arose from the devastation of the 20th century. The “catastrophe, which knows no comparison in the history of libraries and in the history of science”, as the librarian and Nazi opponent Georg Leyh wrote in 1947, was triggered by the extraordinary destructiveness of the Germans during the war of aggression against Poland and by the destruction against European Jews. There followed Cold War tensions between the West and the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact states, ideological fault lines in communist Poland, the division of Germany, and the rivalry between the German Federal Republic and the GDR.
Books have become “migrants” in times of war and crisis. But they did not voluntarily migrate from one place to another like migratory birds, as Michaela Scheibe of the Berlin State Library observed Tuesday evening during a panel discussion to present the book. The event attracted surprisingly strong interest because the topic is not only academic, but politically controversial. There are different national perspectives on books: in Poland copies from Germany or by Germans are considered Polish property and are seen as proportional compensation for the loss of cultural property. In Berlin, the State Library “claims ownership of all materials that bear their historical stamps,” according to its official website. However, according to FAZ, a reference “to where the lost volumes are today would probably be seen as a kind of abandonment of this statement.”
This is precisely where Vanessa de Senarclens comes into play, whose thesis is very well received by the specialized public: it is a “demonstration of the poverty to which two civilized countries like Germany and Poland are unable to find a solution after 80 years”. She suggests “giving up on previous claims,” putting aside the question of ownership and simply cooperating pragmatically. Books should not be seen as “assets”, but as “common European heritage”.
However, the topic is a minefield, as the discussion shows. Achim Bonte, director general of the Berlin State Library, refers to the Foreign Ministry having “never given up its claim to ownership”, which is why its hands are unfortunately tied. Furthermore, a gift to the Poles would put pressure on them to in turn donate something to the Germans. They want to avoid it at all costs, which is why unfortunately nothing can be given to the Poles.
Gilbert Lupfer, member of the board of directors of the Foundation German Center for the Loss of Cultural Property, says that the “precise issue of ownership” unfortunately cannot be resolved. If Germany renounced the right to property, the same debate could also arise on the issues of Nazi theft and Nazi expropriation – and thus pressure could be brought to bear on the Jewish claimants. Lupfer says calmly and significantly: “There is a party that sees it exactly like this. So they don’t want to give anything to the Poles so that the Jews are not forced to give up something.”
No repair proposal has yet arrived from Germany
Krzysztof Ruchniewicz, representative of the Polish Foreign Ministry and responsible for German-Polish cooperation, says it is about “regaining trust” – and “gestures”. However, he clarifies that the debate has another dimension: “We didn’t take the books, we adopted them. Let’s not talk about books. She (the Germans, ed.) they killed.” It’s about “repair”. So far “no proposal” has arrived from Germany.
Nawojka Cieślińska-Lobkowicz, who has written about the fate of Jewish libraries, says “the picture is not black and white.” Individual regions of Poland should be evaluated differently. While Polish and Jewish libraries were destroyed in Warsaw, only Jewish books were destroyed in Krakow. It requires “really well-trained collaboration in provenance research” and encourages “virtual reconstruction of collections.”
Digitalization is praised by everyone. But technology cannot replace efforts to create a shared culture of memory. There is still a lot to do, writes Jürgen Kaube in the FAZ: “The networking of the catalogs of German and Polish libraries is still pending, there are only a few exemplary research projects on the fate of books and on the European common points that now are the results achieved are activated too rarely.” Kaube explains Vanessa de Senarclen’s creative approach: “Having books is a beautiful thing, being able to find and read them easily is a much better thing.”
What are the historical impacts of totalitarian regimes on libraries and books in Europe?
Interview between the Editor of Time.news and Vanessa de Senarclens
Editor: Welcome, Vanessa. Your recent work sheds light on the complex and often tragic history of libraries and books in Europe, particularly in the context of Germany and Poland. You initially set out to explore the 18th century, but as you mentioned, you confronted the repercussions of the 20th century instead. Can you tell us about that shift in focus?
Vanessa de Senarclens: Thank you for having me. Yes, I was initially drawn to the 18th century because I found it intellectually stimulating. However, upon diving into the libraries in Berlin, I was struck by the overwhelming realities of the 20th century—specifically the totalitarian regimes and the resulting devastation. The sheer scale of destruction led to millions of displaced books and countless victims throughout Europe. These experiences ignited a passion in me to explore the aftermath and the ways in which libraries have been affected.
Editor: You describe the experience of researching in Berlin’s libraries as akin to a Sisyphus endeavor. Could you elaborate on that metaphor?
Vanessa de Senarclens: Absolutely. I liken it to Sisyphus because, like him, researchers often find themselves rolling a heavy stone uphill only to watch it roll back down. Despite repeated efforts to catalog and restore lost works, many books are still marked as “War Loss,” and there are significant gaps in collections. Every time there’s a political upheaval, the cataloging process needs to restart. It’s a frustrating cycle, but also a reminder of the resilience of knowledge amidst destruction.
Editor: Your anthology, “Books and their ways. Bibliomigration between Germany and Poland since 1939,” features contributions from multiple researchers. What were some common themes or dilemmas highlighted in the work?
Vanessa de Senarclens: The contributors illuminate the deep scars left by the catastrophic events of the 20th century on libraries and scientific discourse. A major theme is the concept of “bibliomigration” – how books have become refugees due to war and conflict, often losing their original homes. Another prevalent dilemma is the contentious question of ownership. Many Polish scholars argue that German copies of works are rightful Polish property, viewed as compensation for cultural losses during the war. This is where the political dimensions of our inquiry become particularly complex.
Editor: It must be difficult to reconcile the historical perspectives from both German and Polish viewpoints. You suggested that perhaps it’s time to set aside claims of ownership and recognise books as part of a “common European heritage.” How has this idea been received?
Vanessa de Senarclens: It’s a provocative proposal, to say the least. While many appreciate the notion of shared cultural heritage, particularly in light of the horrific past, it meets resistance from nationalistic stances deeply rooted in historical grievances. Some library officials, like Achim Bonte from the Berlin State Library, expressed concerns about the implications of giving up ownership, fearing it could affect other claims related to Nazi theft and restitution. The conversation is a minefield, revealing how the past continues to shape present-day policies.
Editor: The discussion around ownership and restitution is indeed fraught with tensions. As you’ve described, even among those who support cooperation, underlying fears often hinder progress. What do you think are the pathways forward, if any?
Vanessa de Senarclens: I believe pragmatic cooperation is essential. We need to understand that books should not merely be seen as assets or possessions but as shared cultural artifacts that can foster dialog and healing. Collaborative projects that emphasize common interests—like heritage preservation, conservation efforts, and cultural exchange—could pave the way for building trust. However, this requires a willingness from all parties to rethink the significance of ownership in favor of collaboration.
Editor: Thank you for sharing your insights and experiences with us, Vanessa. Your work sheds light on an important and often overlooked aspect of our cultural history. It’s clear that while the past poses challenges, the potential for shared understanding and appreciation remains.
Vanessa de Senarclens: Thank you for having me. It’s been a pleasure to discuss these crucial topics.