Sue the Nazi Bastards!!

Greek Jewish community suing Germany over Nazi ransoms

The Jewish community of Thessaloniki is suing Germany for the return of a ransom paid during the Nazi occupation of Greece.

The papers were filed Friday in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France, the community’s president, David Saltiel, told JTA.

The move to the European court comes after a struggle of two decades in Greek courts, including the Supreme Court, which ruled that Germany had immunity under international conventions.

The ransom was paid to free some 9,000 of Thessaloniki’s Jewish men, aged 18 to 45, from forced labor by the Germans, who took control of the city in 1942. The German civilian administrator of the Thessaloniki , Max Merten, demanded some 2.5 billion drachmas to release them.

In total, 1.9 billion drachmas, or nearly $69 million, was paid before the Germans began transporting Thessaloniki Jews to the death camps. More than 49,000 Jews out of the city’s prewar Jewish population of 55,000 were deported. Fewer than 2,000 survived.

http://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/G...ransoms-342326

What happened there was obviously terrible. I am in no way defending it. But your post made me wonder:

Clearly the suit is not against the individuals who committed the atrocity, it is against the country.

Most the money asked for is likely to go to decedents of the Nazi victims, not the victims themselves.

By the title you chose you support this version of reparations.

So logically I assume you are equally supportive of reparations for the decedents of Southern slaves, correct?

What happened there was obviously terrible. I am in no way defending it. But your post made me wonder:

Clearly the suit is not against the individuals who committed the atrocity, it is against the country.

Most the money asked for is likely to go to decedents of the Nazi victims, not the victims themselves.

By the title you chose you support this version of reparations.

So logically I assume you are equally supportive of reparations for the decedents of Southern slaves, correct? Originally Posted by Old-T

You are correct. The descendents, too.
But after that, no more of this affirmative action/diversity/quota bullshit.

At least you are consistent. Thank you.

Since this discussion is on a higher level...I support, in principal, reparations for the victims of the Holocaust and their children. I will draw the line at grand children as they are twice divorced from the tragedy.

As to the reparations for slavery I have to ask, why? Before you go off, read on. This is a civil action and civil actions assign blame and/or responsibility. Now are reparations demanded because some person was a slave or because of the practice itself. If it is the individual then that person is dead and their children are dead as well. It was a tragedy but there has to be a cutoff and mine is for grandchildren. If it is payment for the institution of slavery then you have to go to whom put the practice in place and all of those who practiced it. England, Spain, Portugal, France, and Holland are the initial perpetrators. The short period between the ratification of the US Constitution and the outlawing of slavery is on the US. An even shorter period of time from 1861 to 1865 puts the Confederacy at the end of the line as far as guilt and yet I feel that they are the primary target. You would have eliminate all the states that did not yet exist from the legal action.
You begin to see how difficult it would be to assign blame without including the innocent and we go back to the first statement about grand children.

So, I too am consistent and I support reparations by Germany (especially living individuals or organizations who profited directly from the Holocaust) but not for slavery. The natural statute of limitations has already ran out.

I will have to think that over, and the children/grandchildren part is subjective, but thank you for a reasoned argument. I think there is much to think about in there.

Since this discussion is on a higher level...I support, in principal, reparations for the victims of the Holocaust and their children. I will draw the line at grand children as they are twice divorced from the tragedy.

As to the reparations for slavery I have to ask, why? Before you go off, read on. This is a civil action and civil actions assign blame and/or responsibility. Now are reparations demanded because some person was a slave or because of the practice itself. If it is the individual then that person is dead and their children are dead as well. It was a tragedy but there has to be a cutoff and mine is for grandchildren. If it is payment for the institution of slavery then you have to go to whom put the practice in place and all of those who practiced it. England, Spain, Portugal, France, and Holland are the initial perpetrators. The short period between the ratification of the US Constitution and the outlawing of slavery is on the US. An even shorter period of time from 1861 to 1865 puts the Confederacy at the end of the line as far as guilt and yet I feel that they are the primary target. You would have eliminate all the states that did not yet exist from the legal action.
You begin to see how difficult it would be to assign blame without including the innocent and we go back to the first statement about grand children.

So, I too am consistent and I support reparations by Germany (especially living individuals or organizations who profited directly from the Holocaust) but not for slavery. The natural statute of limitations has already ran out. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

A wise man taught me... "It's fundamentally wrong to convict the son for the sins of the father, and it's wrong to hold people of a different time and place to the standards of modern society".

Thanks wise man.

Everyone is making good points here. Old-T, you are welcome. JD, the whole thing becomes tied up in knots pretty quickly, I agree. What is the current value of 50 acres and a mule?

Everyone is making good points here. Old-T, you are welcome. JD, the whole thing becomes tied up in knots pretty quickly, I agree. What is the current value of 50 acres and a mule? Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

That was 40 acres and a mule but it wasn't a president who said it. It was General Sherman and he had no authority to make that promise. I wonder what a dweller of South Chicago would do with 40 acres and a mule. This creates a new wrinkle. What about black people whose ancestors arrived in this country AFTER slavery was abolished (Barack Obama, sorry, no mule for you)

Since this discussion is on a higher level...I am obviously not qualified to comment. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Fixed it for you!

I suspect the Greek Jewish suit has to do not with the offense, but the fact ransom was paid. Therefore any connection to American slavery wouldn't be about beatings , captivity or rape, but lost wages, and I do believe there were few, if any, wage and hour laws in affect at the time. So I doubt there is enough capital there to get a lawyer out of bed.

As for the blame of slavery, Africans sold Africans too.

I suspect the Greek Jewish suit has to do not with the offense, but the fact ransom was paid. Therefore any connection to American slavery wouldn't be about beatings , captivity or rape, but lost wages, and I do believe there were few, if any, wage and hour laws in affect at the time. So I doubt there is enough capital there to get a lawyer out of bed.

As for the blame of slavery, Africans sold Africans too. Originally Posted by JohnnyCap

Yep, I forgot all about the African connection...and the middle eastern connection as well.