RE: [Leica] Slave labor and profits during WWII

["B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>]

Again, let's leave Leica out of this discussion until we have facts,
especially given that what we seem to know about Leitz's treatment of Jewish
workers suggests that the firm may have behaved in a more than exemplary
manner.

As to the rest of your post:
- - Yes, the use of slave labor was considered a war crime.
- - No, manpower shortages in war time to do not justify the use of slave
labor.
- - The totally different context and view of what was the best thing argument
won't wash. If it did, there wouldn't have been any war crimes trials.
- - The "brain washing" defense isn't accepted much these days. The great mass
of the German people knew what was going on and thought that it was good for
Germany. I know that in the years after WWII managing to find a German who
belonged to the part, or Hitler youth, or supported Hitler, or was
anti-Semitic, was a bit like trying to find anyone after 1975 who admitted
to having voted for Richard Nixon, but...
- - Yes, it's wonderful that there are examples in the world of mutual love
and respect and people forgiving one another.
- - 50 years is not a very long time. There are people still alive who were
slave laborers and worse.

B. D. Colen -
A Leica devotee, a former VW owner and present Toyota owner, a drinker of
coffee brewed in a Krupps coffee maker, and a consultant to a corporation
that was part of I.G. Farben - none of which has a damn thing to do with the
just settlement of accounts.


- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
[mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of BIRKEY,
DUANE
Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 1998 10:57 AM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: [Leica] Slave labor and profits during WWII


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.