Transitional Justice (TJ) is a multi-disciplinary research field. Yet, the first generation of research largely remained descriptive, practically oriented and focused on single case studies. In order to move the agenda forward, future research needs to become (1) more theory-guided and needs to move towards (2) more empirical comparisons of countries or mechanisms in order to arrive at more generalizable findings as regards the explanation of the effectiveness of the diverse mechanisms to coming to terms with past misdeeds. Although covering a single country only (post-war Germany), the paper contributes to this endeavor by providing an empirical comparison of the four TJ-mechanisms that were applied in the case of Germany’s atonement for the Holocaust: (1) the Nuremberg war crimes tribunal (1946), (2) the state apology delivered by Adenauer in the Bundestag (1951), the reparation payments (1953: Luxemburg Agreement; 2000: Foundation Remembrance,
Responsibility and Future) as well as the amnesty laws (1952). The question this paper answers is: To what extent has the mix of retributive and restorative mechanisms contributed to reconciliation? The analysis of the cross-case (mechanisms) and within-case variance (change over time) starts with a theoretical taxonomy of the mechanisms as regards its purpose or aim (retribution, restoration). The central argument of the paper is that the “amount” of reconciliation (or the success of each mechanisms) differs as regards the understanding of reconciliation, i.e. whether the target of these measures were (a) the victims (here: Israel/World Jewry), (b) third states/international opinion (e.g. the US) or (c) the reconciliation of the German people with themselves.
