[Leica] Slave labor and profits during WWII

["BIRKEY, DUANE" <dbirkey@hcjb.org.ec>]

There is a saying that hindsight is 20/20.  That is to say when people 
look back on their past actions, they are able to see what were and were 
not good decisions.  German companies were operating within a country 
ruled by a Nazi Dictator.  They were in a total different context and had 
a totally different view of what was the best thing or the right thing to 
do at that time.  I doubt we'll ever know what the attitudes of those 
companies directors and owners were at that period of time.  Prosecutable 
war crimes committed by them should be the issue.   Was forced unpaid 
labor considered to be a " war crime"  at the time of WWII?  Or is that a 
contemporary judgement?

I fully support efforts to get Holocaust victim's artwork, finances and 
properties back to their rightful owners. (Although, millions around the 
world have lost property during wartime and have never been compensated.)

I'm not so sure I support lawsuits towards companies who used "slave" 
labor.  You have to consider the context of the German government, it's 
orders to produce war-time goods and in the fact that their employees 
were sent off as soldiers and they needed workers for their factories.  
It seems awfully inconsistent when you look at the millions of people who 
were placed in slavery in the Americas and other colonies by land owners 
who were in a different context.  It seems somewhat unreasonable to 
expect companies to shut down or not earn a profit during war years.  It 
seems somewhat unreasonable to file a suit now some 50 years after the 
fact unless they have recently discovered proof of "war crimes" being 
committed freely by those factories.  On the face of it, It smells to me 
like a few lawyers are looking to play off of current political 
correctness feelings in order to get a huge settlement.   

Good samaritan laws are becoming popular these days and arm-chair 
historians like to think that if companies and the German people had 
stood up to Hitler that perhaps maybe the whole Holocaust could have been 
avoided.  I think that is probably wishful thinking as it ignores factors 
of fear, brain-washing and national-pride and the control that Hitler 
had.  

Rules seem to change when you are at war with another country.  We all 
agree that it is wrong to murder people, yet when another country has 
declared war, it's OK to shoot to kill or to bomb them and kill them by 
the thousands.  War brings out the worst in civilizations and any country 
who has been at war has committed atrocities that go beyond the actual 
weapon bearing soldiers and claim victims who were innocent.  People who 
were affected directly by those events will always feel they were 
victimized. But you have to forgive at some point.

As many of you might remember, in 1956, 5 missionaries here in Ecuador 
were speared to death by Waoroni Indians.  (Formerly known as the Aucas)  
Shortly afterwards, Elizabeth Elliot and her daughter (her husband was 
one of the 5 who was killed) and Rachel Saint (her brother was one of the 
5 killed) were invited to live in the very same community, with the very 
same people who had committed the killing.

Through forgiveness that can only really come from God, they were able to 
live together and become life long friends.  Rachel lived in that 
community for nearly 40 years up until her death.  Rachel's next door 
neighbor was Kimo, who was one of the actual killers.  Steve Saint and 
his family were invited and have returned to live with the very same 
people who killed his father.  Living here has allowed me to meet the 
people involved.  Everyone in that generation can point to people still 
living who killed their father, mother, sister or brother, they haven't 
forgotten, yet through forgiveness, all can live happily together.  That 
is a lesson worth learning.

History itself, especially over 50 years, has a tendency to be rewritten 
as people tend to inflict their own views and perspective upon the 
interpretation of the facts.  Things tend to either get sugar-coated or 
exaggerated depending on which side you are on and your own conscious 
about what happened or what you think should have been done. 

I don't like the idea of suing companies when it is people who commit war 
crimes not companies or brand names.  Getting a settlement from a company 
50 years later after it has been sold to other owners is not going to 
make those who are allegedly guilty of committing crimes pay for their 
wrong-doing.   In Leica's case, it's sort of a legal blackmail if you ask 
me.  If they don't settle in someway they'll get dogged about it for 
years.  If they do settle, they will imply guilt whether there was any 
abuse or not. 

Duane 

>I would also like to know exactly what the Leitz company did during the
>nazi years, how much they lost or profited from that racist
>dictatorship. Most of all, I will scrutinize the way the current
>management manages the current lawsuit. And THAT may or may not prevent
>me from remaining a Leica customer.