Posted on 07/16/2007 6:28:03 PM PDT by LouAvul
JERUSALEM — A group representing thousands of children of Holocaust survivors filed a class-action lawsuit against the German government Monday, demanding that Germany pay for their psychiatric care.
The Israelis, calling themselves second-generation Holocaust survivors, say the scars of the Nazi genocide on their parents have crossed generations. Many still live with an irrational fear of starvation and incapacitating bouts of depression, the lawsuit claims.
The lawsuit marks "the very first time that the German government will be asked to take responsibility and to care for those of the second generation in Israel and indeed, worldwide," attorney Gideon Fisher said before filing the suit at the Tel Aviv District Court.
In Berlin, the German Foreign Ministry declined comment, but the country was likely to see the suit as a window for an indefinite number of future claims.
The suit seeks to set up a German-financed fund to pay for biweekly therapy sessions for 15,000 to 20,000 people, or about $10 million annually for three years.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I think this is a little bit getting carried away.
The suit says the second generation grew up “in the shadow of depression, grief and guilt of their parents, which created a powerful inclination among the children for pain and suffering.”
Children had a “twisted relationship with their parents” that impeded their development and led to severe psychological problems, the suit claims.
One 58-year-old woman told her story to Israel Radio Sunday, saying she inherited the fear of starvation experienced by her parents in Auschwitz, where inmates prized any crust of bread they could obtain.
“If you come to my house and open the freezer, loaves of bread fall on you, without any proportion to what I really need,” the woman said.
She declined to disclose her name, but Mazor said she spoke for thousands.
She said she felt as if she had no childhood, and jumped directly into adolescence. The feeling conveyed by her father was: “I went through hell, and what you are going through is nothing,” she said.
Others of the second generation say they cannot ride buses because it reminds them of the transports their parents took to the concentration camps, or they fear dogs because they were used by the Nazis to control crowds.
Mazor said the Fisher Fund held lengthy negotiations with the German Embassy over the compensation claims, but the talks were cut off by the Germans.
You know...life is...
Many people suffered horribly in WWII. My mom tried to be a teenager in a town overrun by German, Black Shirts and then Americans. Many died. Europe starved after the war and she starved with them. She spent years in a psychiatric ward.
I would no more think of suing someone for the fall out from her trauma related behaviors than I would think of flying to the moon.
Wonderful - and when do we bring the first communist to trial for the deaths of 100 million in the last century?
Nobody sued Germany in 1949.
And my old man should sue the Japanese government for the stress he suffered under as a Marine in the Pacific. This is all about the benjamins, and the German government should tell them to p*ss *ff.
If it’s only spent on psychiatric care, that seems reasonable. I can’t see giving out cash.
“...against the German government...”
How’s that possible? I thought we defeated the Nazi’s 60 years ago. Did they all come back?
This is ridiculous.
As much as I like Jews I have to think that this horse needs to be allowed to decay away.
None of the people in German today are responsible for Hitler and the holocaust.
This is nonesense. Its like talking about modern whites being responsible for slavery or segregation.
Maybe we should be paying the Japanese back for Hieroshima and Nagasaki.
A person can only be held responsible for his own actions and even the current German government hsa no connections with the Hitler regime.
I have a smart and savy girlfriend from college who has never done abything else in her entire life other than play the “HOLOCAUST” card. And she has become a prima dona with it. It has been such a cash cow for her, Invitations to Germany all paid for, for forums, plays out the kazoo here in America and after all if it is there for the takeing why shouldn’t she?
Exactly. Anybody reading my posting history knows I pro-Israel and pro-Jewish. WIthout the Jews there would be no Christians or Jesus.
This isn’t about anything other than predatory attorneys and opportunists trying to take advantage of a bad situation.
Attorneys are to human misery as flies to a rotting carcass.
Nobody ever sued GDR (East Germany.)
My husband's uncle died in Cabanatuan. Your dad, by the way, is a hero.
Doesn’t Israel have any government-paid psychiatric services?
Americans should be able to sue all Imams for the distress that they have caused by promoting hatred of ‘infidels’. We should also be able to sue them for all of the cost of our defenses against possible attacks. It’s an outrage that they are able to continue building bigger and more mosques while our tax money is spent, and our freedoms abrogated, to defend us from their hate speech.
The funny thing is, most of these Israelis don't remember when they last visited a synagogue. If they did do that more often, they would know the difference between right and wrong.
I am sympathetic --- as Holocaust survivors, their parents are often disheartened to the point of cynicism --- but cannot find a single excuse for this action. They must be ashamed of themselves.
A LOT of people need psychiatric care. Most of them are in office or running for office.
Is it nurture or nature?
Parents bring children into the world and raise them. I’m sure it was trying and emotionally difficult for their children at times, but I don’t believe Germany can be held liable for the psychological well-being of all these children. It’s akin to my argument against reparations for slavery.
Besides, a precedent could lead to payments into perpetuity, as long as stories are passed down through generations.
Interesting point. Legally, there didn’t exist a German state from 1945 - 1949. This made it possible for the allies to do whatever they wanted (and needed to do) with Germany and the German people. Therefore,Germany didn’t have the legal status of an occupied country and the rights coming with that status according to international law (didn’t have the chores neither).
Question is, if you can consider the Federal Republic of Germany to be the legal successor of Das Grossdeutsche Reich. If not, there is no legal grounds to sue the FRG whatsoever.
If yes, Germany is still in a state of war with some Island states who declared war on germany in may ‘45, as a peace treaty was never signed (because there was no German state to sign it) ;-)
Germany’s legal status after WW II is quite confusing, and I am not sure I got it all right.
I´m sure you got it wrong. ;-)
First of all, it is correct that there was no peace treaty signed, and that the treaty about the final regulation with regard to Germany of 1990 (set in effect by declaration of the four allied powers on Oct 3rd 1990) is viewed as a substitute for a peace treaty.
Question is, what the legal status of Germany was between 1945 and 1949. The unconditional surrender was signed on behalf a German government, that was not legitimated according to the then existing laws or the constitution of the German Reich of 1919. The “government” was authorized by Hitler´s last will, which can hardly be a legimitation to “lead” (the rests of) a country. But it really doesn´t matter whether the government of Admiral Dönitz was legitimated or not - because the allied took over the power in Germany. The allied powers agreed to end the history of the Prussian state, but they did not abolish the German Reich. So, it can be said that Germany was still the German Reich with the constitution of 1919 when it was occupied by the allied powers between 1945 and 1949, it´s just that the allies had no obligation to obey the laws of this Reich. When the Federal Republic of Germany in the Western part and the German Democratic Republic in the Eastern part were founded, none of these two new countries declared the end of the German Reich, but that wasn´t necessary, since both constitutions made it fully clear, that new countries should replace the old. The Basic Law calls the Federal Republic as such in article 20, and has articles regulating the succession of the German Reich. The Federal Republic of Germany is the legal successor of the German Reich and the German Democratic Republic. In fact, because the new legislative branch couldn´t create so many new laws, many laws were kept in force, such as the Civil Code, the Penal Code or the Codes regulating civil or penal trials. Of course, regulations of these laws that meant a contradiction with the new Basic Law (in particular the basic rights) were null and void (such as the article banning Germans from marrying Jews). Laws dating from the time before 1949 are in general valid, if a) the federal parliament has expressed its will to keep it in force (like, having changed that law after 1949) and b)the regulations mean no contradiction to the Basic Law.
I hope my explanation was understandable. :-)
Thanks for clearing that up :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.