Children of Holocaust Survivors Sue Germany for Psychiatric Care

fox ^ | 7-16-07

[TopQuark]

You are correct, of course. Actually, as a Jew, I am simply appalled by this action. To me, this is simply blackmail.

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.

[ZULU]

A LOT of people need psychiatric care. Most of them are in office or running for office.

Is it nurture or nature?

[FoxInSocks]

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.

[Cerb]

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.

[Michael81Dus]

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. :-)

[Cerb]

Thanks for clearing that up :-)