French railways to face fines for their role in deporting Jews in WW2

[Viv]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=402603&in_page_id=1811&in_a_source=reuters

 

So is this too little too late or appropriate, or should it be consigned to history?

Having read about Oradour sur Glare on Wikipedia, I was surprised to see how little punishment was meted out to the offenders not just the Germans but the Alsacians, but I suppose punishing a faceless corporation is easier than pursuing possibly French individuals.

[Dick Smith]

The Alsaciens involved at Oradour-sur-Glane  were not pursued after the war (according to my French historian pal Yves Buffetaut) because to do so would have been divisive at a time when reintegrating the 'German' parts of France was still contentious. An action in pursuit of national unity, nothing to do with conspiracies.

[Viv]

Oh I didn't mean to suggest it was a conspiracy...but in the pursuit of national unity I can see how it would seriously pee off those affected by the events at OSG.

[tmto]

Would it not make more sense to sue the people who actually set up these camps and planned out all these atrocities in the first place? Or I am missing out on something here?

[Dick Smith]

You are possibly missing out on the fact that they are all dead.

There has been a growing feeling in recent years that organisations which profited from the atrocities (the SNCF did not provide trains for free) should now pay the profits back. Seems pretty reasonable to me.

[Viv]

Dick

Is this action unique to the railways or has any other company ever been held accountable for their role?

The manufacturers of zyklon B seem to still be going strong having a branch in the USA called DEGESCH america, still making pesticides ( at least I assume that it is the same company  [8-)]) . I would have thought at the very least that they would have had the decency to change their name, if they are THE same company.

[Dick Smith]

Before it went bankrupt IG Farben made a payment of half a million Marks to a compensation fund for former slave workers - quite a pitiful sum in reality. However, a number of IG Farben directors had been indicted for war crimes at Nuremberg and imprisoned, so had 'paid' in that sense. They were also involved in joint chemical warfare research with the US government. In general there has been great reluctance to pay out.

For more details see here.

An extract from that site:

"For years, Chancellor Helmut Kohl had maintained that Germany companies which used slave

labor should not have to compensate their victims. This was because the companies were merely following Nazi

government orders that they

employ slave labor. That argument is similar to one raised at the Nuremberg

trials shortly after Word War II: that an officer was is not responsible for

mass murder because he was simply following the orders of his superior officers.

The court rejected that line of reasoning.  

After the 1998 elections, the newly elected government reversed this stance and pledged

to set up foundations to handle financial compensation.

Twelve German industrial giants (Allianz, BASF, Bayer, BMW, Daimler Chrysler,

Degussa-Huels, Dresdner Bank, Fred Krupp, Hoesch Krupp, Hoechst, Siemens, and

Volkswagen) met with German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder in 1999-FEB. They later

announced the establishment of a fund to pay their victims. News reports speculate that it

might have amounted to about 3 billion German Marks, or 2.6 billion US dollars. 

Chancellor Schroeder saw the fund as a win-win situation for both surviving Nazi victims

and German industry. He said: "for those [victims] in the final years of their

lives, it will...provide them with a little more means that they would otherwise have had."

German industry will probably save money because the companies would expect to

be given immunity from future class-action lawsuits. Paying into a multi-billion dollar fund is probably cheaper than

meeting financial awards by the courts."

[tmto]

The people who worked for SNCF back then are by now mostly deceased - therefore if SNCF  has to pay out a large amount of money to a group of individuals, some way or another that cost will be met by people who have nothing to do with all of this (passengers, and  maybe the State - does it still subsidise SNCF to some extent? In others words us). This is the trouble when sueing organisations that bear little ressemblance to what they were decades ago - the people who are penalised are not those who were guilty of anything.

This seems like a cynical attempt to make a large amount of money on the back of a terrible atrocity.

[chris pp]

Um, I think that SNCF is State owned.

That's OK then, a bit more on everyones charges, that's after we've paid back the 13 million that France Telecom received illegally from the French State.

Well, we are all responsible,Chris

 

[Honest Pikey]

Next week...

 Descendants of Harold Godwinson versus descendants of Guillaume Le Conquerant for theft of English crown, criminal damage etc...

[Honest Pikey]

Also... many people had no choice but to follow orders...

What would the consequences be if they didn't...?

Your hide or theirs...?

[Dick Smith]

That is a silly response. This is a serious matter: people who were subjected to appalling conditions in slave labour are still alive, they deserve some compensation. SNCF made money out of the Auschwitz traffic, there is a strong argument that they should pass it back as compensation.

Also - no-one is suggesting making any lien against individuals - if you had read the link I quoted you might have picked that up. It is institutions that are being held communally responsible.

[Deimos]

The issue of people following orders not being responsible for their actions is an interesting one. A slight side track but it is only recently when some British forces personnel have been found guilty in Court Martial s for refusing to participate in what they maintained was an illegal war (illegal under international law). In they court appearance they were told that the issue of the legality of the war was "not relevant" and thus they could not use that as any part of their defence - and they were thus found guilty. Thus, if a member of the armed forces believes something to be wrong and illegal they must still follow their orders and fully carry them out despite their beliefs - as shown by recent UK Court Martial s. If they follow orders and they are correct in their belief that is was wrong but do it anyway then they will again be found guilty (though this time by a different court). It appears to me that the military personnel are being put in an impossible situation.

This is also quite a serious issue. With the UK rushing into so many wars of "dubious legality" these days, it is an ever increasing problem.

Ian

[Deimos]

With regard to the SNCF paying compensation, maybe it is relevant to look at where these monies will be coming from. If the SNCF still have the funds in some gold bars in some vault then fine. However, I suspect that in practice it is the taxpayers and SNCF users,SNCF infrastructure investment or something similar that will be paying the compensation.

I don't know enough about the specific of the SCNF/slave labour circumstances and background to comment on it. However, some of the long term historic things going around these days are "stretching things". I remember last year when one Austrian family sough and got back some valuable paintings from a museum. They had been going on about the emotional importance these painting had to the family,, how they were part of their family history, etc. As soon as they got them back they were sold for millions - so much for the "emotional value". It was all about money. (At least that was the impression from the story as I saw presented on TV).

One thing for sure - wars are terrible and should be avoided at all costs. They bring devastation, destruction, cost a fortune, solve nothing, etc. Can somebody please pass this message to Tony.

Ian

[Dick Smith]

Ian - referring to your previous post. The 'following orders' defence (the so-called Nuremberg Defence) was disallowed at that court for two reasons. The first was that all people must take individual responsibility for their actions, no matter what orders they may have received, or what consequences they believe might follow. The second reason was that in the German army (or SS, I forget) orders could be refused on conscientious grounds without detriment to the refuser. The case quoted at Nurember was that of Richard Bock, an SS corporal, who having witnessed the gassings refused to have anything to do with the process. This was accepted by his superiors and he was given other duties. He was specifically exonerated by the War Crimes Commission.

[chrisb]

[quote user="Dick Smith"]SNCF made money out of the Auschwitz traffic, there is a strong argument that they should pass it back as compensation.
[/quote]

I have to admit to being surprised by this fact - I would have expected the Germans to simply help themselves to the trains that they wanted - not pay SNCF for chartering them.

Rahter than pursuing the present day SNCF I would have thought there was still much unexplored territory in just who was involved in the more active side of the deportations. If some element of corporate retrospective culpability is what's needed then the Gendarmerie would seem to be near the top of the list.

 

[Honest Pikey]

I am genuinly enlightend and surprised by Dicks last posting.

 An SS Corporal given alternative duties...?

Thats not the 'last man last bullet' SS we have all grown to love, is it now...?

 Oh, I'd rather surrender to the Americans than risk a nasty death if you don't mind commandant....type attitude...

One example only...? Was he the Fuhrers pet corporal...?

Are there more Dick..?

I am sorry if I seem flippant about the subject.

 

[Honest Pikey]

Hello,

 Can't google any details about said Richard Bock....

Found the name but nothing else...

[Dick Smith]

I wouldn't say flippant covered it.

His testimony is covered in the transcripts Thames TV made of 'The World at War'.

[Ron Avery]

I know that this is getting away from the point about SNCF and I must say that I cannot see the point now of any compensation as who does it get paid to, extended familes? Surely 99% of those involved are now dead.  However, about the obeying orders comment. When I was at Camp Joffra at Rivesalte a couple of weeks ago to see  how inhumane man can be to his fellow man,  Camp Joffra is where the jews, the spaniards who had fought Franco and other refugees from all over Europe had taken refuge as it was in the free part of France, they thought they were safe although living in terrible conditions but at the request of the Nazis, they were rounded up by the French and sent north to their deaths at Auschwitz.  I made the same point as Albert about orders and about the people who rounded them up for the nazis. ie what do you do with a gun at your back.  I was advised politely but firmly that the French gendarmes who were sent to do the transportation were actually volunteers (as were the Alsaciens involved at Oradour-sur-Glane), many French also had no time for the jews and many were turned in to the Nazis by their neighbours.  This collaboration by the Gendarmerie , particularly in the transportation of French jews to the concentration camps still makes them very unpopular with many older French people.  There were however, some villages like Chambon-sur- Lignon where the inhabitants hid refugees at great personal risk to themselves.

Dick is spot on about the Alsaciens, there was no prosecution of the guilty people in an effort to unify the country.  Although if you believe some historians, the massecre at  Oradour-sur-Glane never actually happened and it was the fault of the Resistance who had hidden explosives in the church. 

 

Edit the *** is a weird censorship on this site which prevents the use of the correct name for the government of Germany under Hitler

[Viv]

Like Chris, I would have thought that an occupying force would have commandeered anything they needed rather than negotiating a fee.

The remark Ron makes about the Gendarmerie volunteering to round people up doesn't surprise me. Even in the Channel Islands, there were those that created and maintained such accurate records that assisted the Germans.

 

[Dick Smith]

The Holocaust was run as a commercial venture, bizarre as it may seem. Able-bodied Jews and others were hired out as slave labour to large (and small) firms - see Schindler's Ark/List. IG Farben, Krupp etc all got labour this way, which is one of the reasons why compensation is being demanded. They made a financial advantage by hiring slave labour from the camps.

When the German (or French) State Railways moved Jews about they were paid from the profits made from slave labour - or the sale of human fat to the army for explosives, bones and ashes from the crematoria for fertiliser, belongings of the gassed, wedding rings and gold teeth, hair cut from their heads and so on. I'm sure you have seen the pictures from Auschwitz. Even children's clothes and toys were kept for 'recycling'.

The end result was a system of extermination which operated at no cost to the German state, and may have been a net contributor.

[Honest Pikey]

I have failed to find this information about Herr Bock...

However...

  Using one mans testimony against the might of the 3rd Reich as regards its intention to dispose of a millenia of european jewery is near nonsense.

 Are there other examples of Nazi soldiers being given such leniency...?

Or was this just a puppet for the court...?

[Deimos]

Having read a few news articles I'm quite confused about the compensation claims. According to the BBC it is the mainly the relatives of those transported by SNCF that are making the claims, not the people transported themselves.

Also, are the compensation claims about poor quality transportation (i.e. the cattle trucks used), the fact that people were to be sent on to the death camps, the fact that some consider that SNCF were "collaborating", etc..

Without wanting to trivialise the horrors of what was going on at the time, it seems that SNCF made their money by billing the French government for the transportation. Don't know what train fares were like then but that cannot amount to "millions of euros". It seems the legal guy who started it sued for the travel conditions his father experience during the 30 hours train journey (his father survived). Whilst I cannot sympathise with such treatment of people, if its about a 30 hour train journey so many years ago then I do wonder if it might be stretching things a bit.

If its about "collaboration" then I think there was more collaboration going on than SNCF transporting people for the German occupying forces. As others have said, maybe the Gendarmes plus many others are better targets.

If its about the horrific things done during the war then I would think that SNCF played a minor role in that - thus I would question why its all being brought-up again now so many years later.

From having read a few articles I cannot help but question as to the real motives being money/publicity. There are good arguments that we should not forget what was done in order that we can avoid such things happening again. Trouble is that these wars seem to just keep on starting - despite what we should have learnt. Take the recent Israel destruction of Lebanon. I wonder what sort of compensation claims will be being sent to Israel and how readily they will be handing out compensation.

Ian

[The Riff-Raff Element]

[quote user="Dick Smith"]Ian - referring to your previous post. The

'following orders' defence (the so-called Nuremberg Defence) was

disallowed at that court for two reasons. The first was that all people

must take individual responsibility for their actions, no matter what

orders they may have received, or what consequences they believe might

follow. The second reason was that in the German army (or SS, I forget)

orders could be refused on conscientious grounds without detriment to

the refuser. The case quoted at Nurember was that of Richard Bock, an

SS corporal, who having witnessed the gassings refused to have anything

to do with the process. This was accepted by his superiors and he was

given other duties. He was specifically exonerated by the War Crimes

Commission.

[/quote]

It is all a bit convenient though, isn't it? One single coporal trotted

out to testify that the senior offices of the SS where not, in fact, a

bunch of muderous loonies but actually rather avuncular types who would

let off an insorbdinate little tick with a smile and a wink. A quick

shave with Ocham's razor and it does look pretty unlikely when stacked

against their other leisure activities (e.g. attempting to slaughter an

entire race or two, subduing populations with the treat of death,

stavation and torture, etc, etc).

Nuremburg needed to justify it's (probably necessary) brutal response

to brutal offenses, and allowing that people might have a defense in

saying that they feared retribution against them or their families in

the form of execution or torture if they failed to do as they were told

was simply not expedient. In more modern times fear of retribution is,

of course, frequently considered a mitigating circumstance - the

security guard who hands over the keys against the treat of seeing his

daughter having her eyes gouged out would probably elicit sympathy

rather than censure. It is very easy to take the moral high ground when

the gun is aimed at someone else.

Personally I am rather disappointed that the suffering of so many

millions is being turned by a few into a compensation exercise. Far

better, perhaps, to try and pursaude governments (or SNCF - same thing

really) to invest the money that would be paid in "fines" into attempts

to counter the hatreds of today.

EDIT: And Dick - I agree with you. Shame about the troll. This had the

makings of an intersting thread: could the mods filter out the

anti-semitic crap and let it run I wonder?