What explains divergent transitional justice preferences among political elites after genocide? We argue that elite preferences vary with their proximity to the victimized group. Individuals who know the victims personally and/or have witnessed violence against them may be more likely to support punishing the perpetrators, possibly because they experience collective guilt. We support this argument using an original biographical dataset on the members of the West German parliament, linking their location and experiences during the Third Reich to free roll-call votes on extending the statute of limitations for murder in 1965–69. We find that proximity to synagogues, particularly those attacked in November 1938, predicts support for extending the statute, conditional on party, state, mandate type, denomination, and a host of personal attributes. We also find significantly lower support for extending the statute among former NSDAP members. Our findings highlight the importance of bystander experiences in shaping support for retributive justice.
AguilarP.BalcellsL.Cebolla-BoadoH. (2011). Determinants of attitudes toward transitional justice: An empirical analysis of the Spanish case. Comparative Political Studies, 44(10), 1397–1430. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414011407468
2.
AllportG. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.
3.
AlyG. (2006). Hitler’s beneficiaries: Plunder, racial war, and the Nazi Welfare state. Metropolitan Books.
4.
ArtD. (2006). The Politics of the Nazi past in Germany and Austria. Cambridge University Press.
5.
BalcellsL. (2012). The consequences of victimization on political identities evidence from Spain. Politics & Society, 40(3), 311–347. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329211424721
6.
BankierD. (1992). The Germans and the final Solution: Public opinion under Nazism. Oxford University Press.
7.
BaumannM.DebusM.MüllerJ. (2015). Personal characteristics of mps and legislative behavior in moral policymaking. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 40(2), 179–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/lsq.12072
8.
BazylerM. (2017). National prosecutions of nazi war criminals. In Holocaust, genocide, and the law. Oxford University Press.
9.
BranscombeN. R.MironA. (2004). Interpreting the ingroup’s negative actions toward another group: Emotional reactions to appraised harm. In TiedensL. Z.LeachC. W. (eds.), The social life of emotions. Cambridge University Press.
10.
BranscombeN. R.SchmittM.SchiffhauerK. (2007). Racial attitudes in response to thoughts of white privilege. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37(2), 203–215. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.348
BuggleJ.MayerT.SakalliS. O.ThoenigM. (2023). The refugee’s dilemma: Evidence from Jewish migration out of Nazi Germany. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 138(2), 1273–1345. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjad001
13.
CapocciaG.Pop-ElechesG. (2020). Democracy and retribution: Transitional justice and regime support in postwar West Germany. Comparative Political Studies, 53(3-4), 399–433. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414019852704
14.
CarlsmithK. M. (2006). The roles of retribution and utility in determining punishment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(4), 437–451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.06.007
15.
ČehajićS.BrownR. (2010). Silencing the past: Effects of intergroup contact on acknowledgment of in-group responsibility. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1(2), 190–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550609359088
16.
CharnyshV. (2015). Historical legacies of interethnic competition: Anti-semitism and the eu referendum in Poland. Comparative Political Studies, 48(13), 1711–1745. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414015598921
17.
CharnyshV.FinkelE. (2017). The death camp eldorado: Political and economic effects of mass violence. American Political Science Review, 111(4), 801–818. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055417000296
18.
CharnyshV.RiazS. (2023). Replication data for: After the genocide: Proximity to victims and support for punishing ingroup crimes. Harvard Dataverse. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/Q6ZW1V
19.
DalyS. Z. (2018). Determinants of ex-combatants’ attitudes toward transitional justice in Colombia. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 35(6), 656–673. https://doi.org/10.1177/0738894218788084
DavisK. E.JonesE. E. (1960). Changes in interpersonal perception as a means of reducing cognitive dissonance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 61(3), 402–410. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0044214
22.
DeanM. (2008). Robbing the Jews: The confiscation of Jewish property in the Holocaust. Cambridge University Press.
23.
de JuanA.GläßelC.HaassF.ScharpfA. (2023). The political effects of witnessing state atrocities: Evidence from the Nazi death marches. Comparative Political Studies, 001041402311787. https://doi.org/10.1177/00104140231178736.
24.
de JuanA.HaassF.KoosC.RiazS.TichelbaeckerT. (2023). War and nationalism: How WW1 battle deaths fueled civilians’ support for the Nazi party. American Political Science Review, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000305542300014X.
25.
DoosjeB.BranscombeN. R.SpearsR.MansteadA. S. R. (1998). Guilty by association: When one’s group has a negative history. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(4), 872–886. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.4.872
HadzicD.CarlsonD.TavitsM. (2017). How exposure to violence affects ethnic voting. British Journal of Political Science, 50(1), 345–362. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007123417000448
35.
HallJ.KovrasI.StefanovicD.LoizidesN. (2018). Exposure to violence and attitudes towards transitional justice. Political Psychology, 39(2), 345–363. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12412
HoernerJ. M.JaaxA.RodonT. (2019). The long-term impact of the location of concentration camps on radical-right voting in Germany. Research & Politics, 6(4), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168019891376
38.
HohendorfL.SaalfeldT.SiebererU. (2020). Oppositional strategies between cooperation and conflict: An analysis of opposition party voting in the German bundestag, 1949–2013. In Continuity and change of party democracies in Europe (pp. 309–342). Springer.
39.
HomolaJ.PereiraM. M.TavitsM. (2020). Legacies of the third reich: Concentration camps and out-group intolerance. American Political Science Review, 114(2), 573–590. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055419000832
40.
HopgoodS. (2013). The Endtimes of human rights. Cornell Univ. Press.
41.
JacobsJ. (2008). Memorializing the sacred: Kristallnacht in German national memory. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 47(3), 485–498. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5906.2008.00422.x
KreutzmüllerC. (2019). Photographing bystanders. In MorinaC.ThijsK. (eds.), Probing the limits of Categorization: The bystander in Holocaust history (pp. 131–147). Berghahn Books.
48.
LickelB.SchmaderT.BarquissauM. (2004). The evocation of moral emotions in intergroup contexts: The distinction between collective guilt and collective shame. In BranscombeN. R.DoosjeB. (eds.), Collective guilt: International perspectives (pp. 35–55). Cambridge University Press.
49.
MaurerT. (2005). Part IV. from everyday life to a state of emergency: Jews in Weimar and Nazi Germany. In Jewish Daily life in Germany, 1618–1945 (p. 272–374). Oxford University Press.
50.
MeyerssonE. (2014). Islamic rule and the empowerment of the poor and pious. Econometrica, 82(1), 229–269. DOI:10.3982/ECTA9878
51.
MorinaC. (2019). The imperative to act. In MorinaC.ThijsK. (eds.), Probing the limits of Categorization: The bystander in Holocaust history (pp. 148–167). Berghahn Books.
52.
PaluckE. L.GreenS.GreenD. P. (2019). The contact hypothesis re-evaluated. Behavioural Public Policy, 3(02), 129–158. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2018.25
53.
PanayiP. (2003). Victims, perpetrators and bystanders in a German town: The jews of osnabrück before, during and after the third reich. European History Quarterly, 33(4), 451–492. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265691403334002
54.
PendasD. O. (2013). The Frankfurt Auschwitz trial, 1963-1965. Cambridge University Press.
PenicS.ElcherothG.SpiniD. (2018). When is collective exposure to war events related to more acceptance of collective guilt. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 62(1), 143–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002716645388
57.
PettigrewT. F.TroppL. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751
58.
PettigrewT. F.TroppL. R. (2008). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? meta-analytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(6), 922–934. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.504
59.
RozenasA.ZhukovY. M. (2019). Mass repression and political loyalty: Evidence from Stalin’s ‘terror by hunger. American Political Science Review, 113(2), 569–583. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055419000066
60.
SamiiC. (2013). Who wants to forgive and forget? Transitional justice preferences in postwar Burundi. Journal of Peace Research, 50(2), 219–233. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343312463713
61.
SharplesC. (2004). In pursuit of justice: Debating the statute of limitations for Nazi war crimes in Britain and West Germany during the 1960s. Holocaust Studies, 20(3), 81–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/17504902.2014.11435376
62.
SiebererU. (2010). Behavioral consequences of mixed electoral systems: Deviating voting behavior of district and list MPs in the German Bundestag. Electoral Studies, 29(3), 484–496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2010.04.012
63.
SiebererU.SaalfeldT.OhmuraT.BergmannH.BailerS. (2020). Roll-call votes in the German bundestag: A new dataset, 1949–2013. British Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 1137–1145. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007123418000406
64.
SikkinkK. (2011). The justice Cascade: How human rights Prosecutions are changing World Politics. Norton.
65.
SolomonD. (2021). The logic of pogrom violence: Evidence from Kristallnacht. Working Paper.
66.
SpenkuchJ. L.TillmannP. (2017). Elite influence? Religion and the electoral success of the nazis. American Journal of Political Science, 62(1), 19–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12328.
67.
StamA. C.EllisC. M.HorowitzM. C. (2015). Why leaders fight. Cambridge University Press.
68.
Statistisches Bundesamt. (1965). Wahl zum 5. Deutschen Bundestag am 19. September 1965. Allgemeine Ergebnisse nach Wahlkreisen, Sitzverteilung und Abgeordnete. Kohlhammer, vol. 6.
69.
SuboticJ. (2009). Hijacked justice: Dealing with the past in the Balkans. Cornell Univ. Press.
van ProoijenJ.-W. (2009). Retributive reactions to suspected offenders: The importance of social categorizations and guilt probability. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(6), 715–726. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205284964
74.
van ProoijenJ.-W. (2013). Individualistic and social motives for justice judgments. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1299(1), 60–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.12143
75.
VierhausR. (2002). (Ed.), Biographisches Handbuch der Mitglieder des Deutschen Bundestages: 1949-2002. K.G. Saur.
76.
VollhardtJ. R.BilewiczM. (2013). After the genocide: Psychological perspectives on victim, bystander, and perpetrator groups. Journal of Social Issues, 69(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12000
77.
WashingtonE. (2008). Female socialization: How daughters affect their legislator fathers’ voting on women’s issues. The American Economic Review, 98(1), 311–332. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.98.1.311
78.
WittmannR. (2002). The wheels of justice turn slowly: The pretrial investigations of the Frankfurt Auschwitz trial 1963-65. Central European History, 35(3), 345–378. https://doi.org/10.1163/15691610260426498
79.
WójcikA.BilewiczM.LewickaM. (2010). Living on the ashes: Collective representations of Polish–Jewish history among people living in the former Warsaw ghetto area. Cities, 27(4), 195–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2010.01.002
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
