|
CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS FOUNDATION
Bill of Rights in Action Summer
2002 (18:3) Victims of War This Bill of Rights in Action looks at issues related to victims of war. The first article examines the internment of Japanese Americans in camps during World War II, the court case that upheld it as constitutional, and subsequent attempts to compensate those held in the camps. The second article looks at the "Rape of Nanking," the massacre of Chinese by Japanese troops just before World War II, and at the war crimes trial following the war. The last article examines how victims of World War II are attempting to get compensation through lawsuits. U.S. History: Wartime and the Bill of Rights: The Korematsu Case World History: The "Rape of Nanking" U.S. Government: Compensating the Victims of War Wartime and the Bill of Rights: The Korematsu Case During World War II, the U.S. government ordered 120,000 persons of Japanese ancestry into prison camps. Fred Korematsu, an American citizen of Japanese descent, refused to go, and his case went before the Supreme Court. In the 1880s, Japanese immigrants began coming to the West Coast of the United States to work. They called themselves the Issei, the first Japanese immigrant generation. The Issei met a lot of official racial discrimination. Federal law prohibited the Issei from ever becoming naturalized U.S. citizens. California, where most of the Issei lived, made it illegal for them to own agricultural land. The Issei's children who were born in the United States automatically became American citizens. Called Nisei, the second generation, they quickly became Americanized. They attended public schools, spoke English, attended college, worked in many occupations, and voted in elections. The Nisei thought of themselves as Americans, not Japanese. In 1940, 127,000 persons of Japanese ancestry lived in the United States, mostly in California. Sixty-three percent of them were Nisei, American-born citizens. For most of the Issei and Nisei, life was good. Then Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. In the months following the attack on Pearl Harbor, pressure mounted from politicians on the West Coast. They demanded that "something be done" about the Issei and Nisei living there. Rumors spread about Japanese Americans preparing to aid a Japanese invasion of the United States. But when the Army and FBI investigated these rumors, they found them to be false. General John L. DeWitt was responsible for the defense of the West Coast. Without any real evidence, he believed that people of Japanese ancestry, citizens and non-citizens alike, could not be trusted. He said that the lack of any sabotage on the West Coast only proved that they were waiting for the Japanese invasion to begin. Working with others in the War Department, General DeWitt developed a plan to remove all the Issei and Nisei from their homes in the Western states and lock them in prison camps. The Justice Department, FBI, and Army intelligence all concluded that such a drastic action was not necessary. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, however, accepted General DeWitt's recommendation. On February 19, 1942, President Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066. This gave General DeWitt authority to order the mass evacuation of Issei and Nisei from the West Coast and other military areas. This order affected about 120,000 citizens and non-citizens of Japanese origin. The stated purpose of removing this entire ethnic group was for "protection against espionage and against sabotage." Congress made it a crime to refuse to leave a military area when ordered to do so. Starting on March 2, 1942, General DeWitt issued orders requiring all persons of Japanese ancestry in eight Western states to report to temporary assembly centers. When they reported, the government transported them to permanent "relocation centers," the guarded prison camps where they would remain for up to four years. When ordered to evacuate, Issei and Nisei families usually had only a few days to sell their homes, businesses, vehicles, and other property. Even so, almost all cooperated with General DeWitt's orders, believing that by doing so they proved their loyalty. Although more than 60 percent of those ordered to evacuate were U.S. citizens, none had a hearing or trial before the government locked them up in relocation camps. Once in the camps, however, the government asked them to sign a loyalty oath to the United States. Most did, but about 4 percent refused, protesting how they had been treated. The government classified these individuals as "disloyal." The Korematsu Case Born of Issei immigrant parents in Oakland, California, Fred Korematsu was a Nisei and an American citizen. He was 22-years-old in 1942 when General DeWitt ordered everyone of Japanese ancestry in the Western United States to report to assembly centers. But Korematsu was in love with an Italian-American girl and decided he did not want to leave his home near Oakland. After refusing to report for internment, Korematsu changed his name and even underwent eyelid surgery to make him look less Japanese. On May 30, 1942, however, government authorities finally tracked him down. They arrested him for remaining in a military area barred to anyone of Japanese ancestry. After his conviction in a federal court, the judge sentenced Korematsu to five years probation. The military immediately took him into custody, however, and sent him to the relocation camp at Topaz, Utah. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) persuaded Korematsu to appeal his case. When Korematsu's case reached the Supreme Court in October 1944, the attorneys for the government pointed to the constitutional war powers of Congress and the president. The government argued that the military must take all steps necessary to wage war successfully. In the view of President Roosevelt, the War Department, and General DeWitt, the internment of all Japanese Issei and Nisei was a "military necessity." The government attorneys further argued that there was not enough time to hold hearings or trials to determine who was and was not loyal. The attorneys presented a report from General DeWitt, who repeated many of the unproved rumors about Issei and Nisei disloyalty. The government also cited those in the camps who had refused to sign the loyalty oath. Attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union and the Japanese American Citizens League represented Korematsu. They argued that there was no military necessity for removing and imprisoning all persons of Japanese ancestry without a hearing or trial. Korematsu's attorneys showed that during the nearly four months between Pearl Harbor and General DeWitt's first evacuation order, not one person of Japanese descent had been convicted of espionage or sabotage. The attorneys stated that instead of uprooting 120,000 men, women, and children from their homes, the government simply could have barred them from specific military and industrial sites. If military necessity was not the reason for the evacuations and imprisonments, as Korematsu's lawyers argued, what was? They charged that General DeWitt accepted the prejudiced views of those hostile to the Issei and Nisei and was himself a racist. To prove their point, they quoted a statement DeWitt made before a congressional committee in 1943:
On December 18, 1944, the Supreme Court decided, 6-3, to uphold the conviction of Korematsu. The majority ruled only on his refusal to leave a prohibited military area and did not consider the constitutionality of the relocation camps. Justice Hugo Black, writing for the majority, fully accepted the views of General DeWitt. Justice Black also said that Korematsu had not been forced from his home because of his race, but because of "the military urgency of the situation." Three of the justices vigorously dissented from the majority opinion. Justice Robert H. Jackson denied that the government could simply declare all members of a racial group guilty and imprison them. He wrote that "guilt is personal and not inheritable." Justice Owen J. Roberts condemned the imprisonment of a citizen "without evidence or inquiry concerning his loyalty." Justice Frank Murphy called the majority opinion "this legalization of racism." [Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944)] Release and Compensation When the Supreme Court made its Korematsu decision, the justices also decided another case that resulted in finally closing down the prison camps. The Supreme Court ruled that President Roosevelt's executive order and the enforcement law passed by Congress only authorized the removal of the Issei and Nisei from military areas, not their imprisonment. The court never squarely decided whether the government could have legally issued orders and passed laws to establish a prison camp system. [Ex parte Endo, 323 U.S. 283 (1944)] When the Issei and Nisei left the camps, the government granted them $25 per person or $50 per family and train fare home. In 1948, Congress partially compensated them for the loss of their businesses or property. In 1980, President Carter appointed a special commission to investigate the entire internment affair. The commission concluded that the decisions to remove those of Japanese ancestry to prison camps occurred because of "race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership." In 1988, Congress apologized and granted personal compensation of $20,000 to each surviving prisoner. Korematsu had one more day in court. Researchers discovered that the government had withheld important facts at his trial. In 1984, a federal judge agreed that Korematsu probably did not get a fair trial and set aside his conviction. A Proper Balance During wartime, the Bill of Rights has often become less important to Americans than the need for national security, as Korematsu found out. The problem in wartime is to achieve what Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist terms "a proper balance" between civil liberties and protection. A few months after September 11, Fred Korematsu, then 82, spoke to students at Stanford University. He said that he never lost faith in the American system of justice. "You have to fight for your rights," he declared. "Don't be afraid." For Discussion and Writing
For Further Information Of Civil Rights and Wrongs: The Fred Korematsu Story From PBS's POV. The Japanese American Internment Large set of links from About.com. Evacuation and Internment of San Francisco Japanese, 1942 Museum exhibit with links to newspaper articles of the day. Teaching
With Documents Lesson Plan: Documents and Photographs Related to Was the United States justified in placing Japanese Americans in internment centers in 1942, after war was declared on Japan? A lesson from Project Legal. War Relocation Authority Camps in Arizona 1942-1946 Photographs of the camps. Terrorism: A Section by Section Analysis of the USA Patriot Act A CRS Report for Congress. (PDF File) Reviews of Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist's All the Laws But One: Civil Liberties in Wartime:
A C T I V I T Y A Proper Balance After September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft took steps to strengthen the ability of law enforcement to investigate terrorist activity in the United States. Congress also passed the "Patriot Act," which gives additional authority to law enforcement. Some of these new measures affect only non-citizens, but others apply to American citizens as well. Below is a list of measures that are currently in effect. Do they achieve "a proper balance" between civil liberties and protection? Read each one and then write a paragraph, explaining why you agree or disagree with it. After doing this, presents your views on the four measures in a class discussion.
At the beginning of World War II, Japanese soldiers committed many atrocities against POWs and civilians in Nanking, China. After the war, a war crimes trial focused on who was responsible for these acts. For much of human history, the idea of "war crimes" did not exist. Victorious armies often slaughtered defeated enemy soldiers and civilians as well. About a hundred years ago, however, most major nations in the world began to agree on certain "rules of war." In 1899 and 1907, at a city called The Hague in the Netherlands, the world powers agreed to prohibit the killing or mistreatment of prisoners of war and civilians. In effect, these Hague Conventions made it illegal under international law for soldiers and their commanding officers to carry out acts that came to be called "war crimes." Japan was one of the nations that signed and ratified the Hague Conventions. Japan was fast becoming a modern and industrialized country with a military force patterned after those of Europe. Following the example of European colonial powers, Japan went to war against China in 1894 to gain control of some Chinese trading ports. In 1905, Japan defeated Russia in a war over possession of ports in the Chinese territory of Manchuria. It was the first Asian nation to defeat a European power. By the early 1930s, Japanese military and political leaders believed that it was Japan's destiny to acquire China. They thought that Japan's economic survival depended on control of Chinese agricultural lands and other resources. Meanwhile in China, revolutionaries had overthrown the last emperor and were trying to unify the country under the leadership of Chiang Kai-shek. The Japanese viewed these events as a threat to their plans for dominating China as a virtual colony. In response, Japan seized all of Manchuria in 1931. In 1937, two years before Hitler started World War II in Europe, and four years before Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, the Japanese launched another invasion of Chinese territory. This time, they occupied the Chinese capital city, Peking (now spelled Beijing). In addition, they sent a major force to attack Shanghai, China's largest city (located near the mouth of the Yangtze River). Outside Shanghai, the Japanese, under the command of General Matsui Iwane met heavy resistance from Chiang Kai-shek's army. The battle raged on for several months, killing thousands on both sides. Finally, in early November 1937, Chiang ordered his army to retreat 250 miles inland along the Yangtze River to Nanking (now spelled Nanjing), the new Chinese capital. General Matsui's troops pursued the Chinese, who soon began to flee in panic. Although Matsui issued orders forbidding mistreatment of the Chinese people, Japanese soldiers felt vengeful. They had endured fierce fighting in the battle for Shanghai. Japanese troops executed many Chinese soldiers who had surrendered. They also killed draft-age men, whom they suspected of being enemy soldiers disguised as civilians. Because the Japanese military high command in Tokyo had failed to establish an adequate supply system for their troops, soldiers began stealing food from the countryside. This led to further abuses of Chinese civilians. The Fall of Nanking As Japanese troops moved closer to Nanking, Chiang Kai-shek, Chinese government officials, and many civilians left the city. Chiang, however, ordered his generals and about 100,000 soldiers to remain and defend the Chinese capital. In early December 1937, Japanese air strikes and artillery bombarded Nanking. In battles outside the city, Chinese troops proved no match for the Japanese. The Japanese demanded that if the Chinese did not surrender Nanking "all the horrors of war will be let loose." Chiang Kai-shek refused to permit the surrender of the capital, but finally ordered the defenders to evacuate. Panic gripped the city. Chinese soldiers and civilians desperately tried to flee Nanking before the Japanese arrived. When the Japanese surrounded Nanking on December 12, they trapped tens of thousands of Chinese soldiers and about 200,000 civilians in the city. Although most foreigners had fled Nanking, a group of about 25 American and European businessmen, doctors, nurses, college professors, and Christian missionaries remained. In the weeks leading up to the fall of Nanking, they formed a committee to organize a two square mile "International Safety Zone" within the city. The purpose of the Safety Zone was to shelter and protect the Chinese civilians still living in Nanking. The Safety Zone Committee elected an unlikely leader—John Rabe. He was a German businessman who also headed the Nazi Party in Nanking. Even so, Rabe worked tirelessly and put his life in danger to shelter and save the lives of many Chinese. When Japanese troops finally marched into Nanking on December 13, 1937, thousands of civilians crowded into the Safety Zone. The Safety Zone Committee decided to also admit stranded Chinese soldiers. The Japanese never fully agreed to honor the Safety Zone, but allowed the committee of foreigners to feed and house the people seeking refuge there. The Execution of POWs Thousands of Chinese soldiers had surrendered before the Japanese entered Nanking. Once in the city, Japanese troops rounded up any Chinese soldiers they found in house-to-house searches and in the Safety Zone. Since defeated Chinese soldiers had the custom of exchanging their military uniforms for civilian clothes, the Japanese also arrested many draft-age males not in uniform. Undoubtedly, this group included many civilians—policemen, firemen, city employees, hospital workers, servants, and others. The Japanese faced the problem of what to do with these POWs (prisoners of war). A feeling of vengeance against the Chinese ran strong among Japanese troops. The Japanese had difficulty feeding their own soldiers, let alone tens of thousands of Chinese POWs. The Japanese also saw the POWs as a security risk. They didn't have a camp to hold the POWs. They thought the POWs threatened the safety of the Japanese soldiers as well as a planned victory parade in Nanking led by General Matsui. The Japanese army had no clear POW policy. Division commanders in Nanking took matters into their own hands and ordered the execution of the POWs under their control. The Japanese shot some by firing squad and bayoneted others to death. In some cases, the Japanese lined up POWs in groups from 100-200 on the banks of the Yangtze and machine-gunned them. Some Japanese officers used their swords to behead POWs. About 40,000 Chinese POWs and civilian draft-age men probably perished within a week or so. The Japanese had committed the first major war crimes of World War II. But the worst was yet to come. "Cases of Disorder" Atrocities (brutal acts) against the people of Nanking began as soon as Japanese troops entered the city. Unlike the POW executions ordered by Japanese army division commanders, most atrocities against Nanking's civilians were criminal acts done by undisciplined soldiers. Japanese soldiers beat people, robbed them at gunpoint, and murdered them almost randomly. The soldiers stabbed people with bayonets, mutilated them with knives, and even ran over them with tanks. The soldiers vandalized, looted, and burned public buildings and private homes. They even destroyed animals for no reason. For more than a month, Japanese soldiers roamed the city hunting for women to rape. The soldiers raped women and girls on the street, in stores, and in homes before horrified family members. The victims ranged in age from 10 to over 60. Even pregnant women were sexually assaulted. Gang rapes and kidnappings for the purpose of rape occurred. Raped women were sometimes mutilated or killed. The rapists killed children and even infants simply because they got in the way. Japanese soldiers frequently invaded the International Safety Zone in search of women. On several occasions, John Rabe, the leader of the Safety Zone Committee, stopped sexual assaults by displaying his Nazi swastika armband. The soldiers did not want to get into trouble with a country that they knew was a friend of Japan. During the weeks of terror in Nanking, the Safety Zone Committee sent letters and eyewitness reports of the atrocities to Japanese diplomats, hoping they could stop the rampaging soldiers. Called "Cases of Disorder," these reports detailed what was happening to the people of Nanking. The Safety Zone Committee recorded this account of a case that took place on January 15, 1938:
Who Was Responsible? General Matsui was the overall commander of Japanese military operations in Central China. Headquartered in Shanghai, he did not personally witness the terrible events that unfolded in Nanking. A few days after Japanese forces occupied the Chinese capital, however, Matsui entered the city to lead a victory parade. Finding out about some of the atrocities that Japanese soldiers were committing, he ordered that, "Anyone who misconducts himself must be severely punished." After General Matsui returned to Shanghai, the atrocities against the people continued in Nanking. Army division commanders did little to stop them. In Shanghai, General Matsui issued new orders, stating that the "honor of the Japanese Army" required punishment for the illegal acts of soldiers. Again, the Japanese commanders in Nanking were unwilling or unable to control their troops. Only after Matsui returned to Nanking in early February 1938, six weeks after the fall of the city, did order and discipline improve among the occupying troops. Even today, great controversy arises over the number of victims in the "Rape of Nanking." Official Chinese figures put the number at 300,000. Some in Japan deny the massacre took place. But today Japanese textbooks, which for years did not mention Nanking, estimate that 200,000 were killed. The latest research indicates that Japanese troops probably killed at least 50,000 to 100,000 POWs and civilian men, women, and children. Many thousands more were rape victims and others who were injured but survived. Who, then, was responsible for these atrocities? As they did at Nuremberg,
Germany, the victorious Allies conducted war crimes trials in several
Asian nations after the war. At Nanking, a war crimes tribunal convicted
and hanged three Japanese army lieutenants for beheading hundreds of
Chinese POWs. The Nanking tribunal also tried and executed one Japanese
general who commanded troops in Nanking. In Tokyo, more than two dozen Japanese political and military leaders also faced a war crimes tribunal. General Matsui was indicted for "deliberately and recklessly" ignoring his legal duty "to take adequate steps to secure the observance and prevent breaches" of the laws of war (the Hague Conventions). In his defense, General Matsui said that he never ordered the POW executions. He also argued that he had directed his army division commanders to discipline their troops for criminal acts, but was not responsible when they failed to do this. The majority of the judges at the Tokyo tribunal ruled that Gen. Matsui was ultimately responsible for the "orgy of crime" because, "He did nothing, or nothing effective to abate these horrors." A dissenting judge, Radhabinod Pal from India, disagreed with the majority. He concluded that the commander-in-chief must rely on his subordinate officers to enforce soldier discipline. "The name of Justice," Pal wrote in his dissent, "should not be allowed to be invoked only for . . . vindictive retaliation." American military authorities hanged General Matsui on December 27, 1948. For Discussion and Writing
For Further Information The Laws of War The texts of international treaties establishing laws of war. From the Avalon Project at Yale Law School. Scarred by History: The Rape of Nanking Summary from BBC News. The Nanking Atrocities An extensively researched site with written commentary, photographs, and video. Master's thesis in year 2000 of Kajimoto Masato, Graduate School of Journalism, University of Missouri-Columbia. WWW Memorial Hall of the Victims in the Nanjing Massacre (1937-1938) Large collection of links to articles, photographs, and videos. Basic Facts of the Nanking Massacre and Tokyo War Crimes Trial From the WWW Memorial Hall. Commemorating the 60th Anniversary of the Nanking Massacre A photographic exhibit from Princeton University. Three articles on the massacre from the 1999 Columbia East Asia Review: A Japanese Historiography of the Nanking Massacres Traces the changing viewpoints of Japanese toward the massacres. By Takeshi Yoshida The Nanking Massacres: A Retrospective By Colleen Hsia. Nanjing Massacre: A History Written in Blood and Flesh By Jennifer Mak. Nanking (Nanjing) Massacres Links from the Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies. Book Reviews of The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of
World War II by Iris Chang:
Forgotten Holocaust Interview with Iris Chang by David Gergen on PBS's NewsHour. Japanese Imperialism and the Massacre in Nanjing A book by Gao Xingzu, Wu Shimin, Hu Yungong, & Cha Ruizhen. Translated from Chinese into English by Robert Gray. Case Study: The Nanjing Massacre, 1937-38 From Gendercide Watch, a group concerned with acts of gender-selective mass killing around the world. Primary Sources:
The Good Nazi New York Times book review of The Good Man of Nanking: The Diaries of John Rabe. Some in Japan continue to deny that the Nanking Massacre occurred. Here are three web sites related to this:
Collective Amnesia: Japan's Crusade to Forget Links to articles on some Japanese attempts to deny war crimes. From the Global Alliance for Preserving the History of World War II in Asia. A C T I V T Y Crimes of War What acts during a war should be punishable as crimes of war?
Compensating the Victims of War World War II war victims have sued banks, companies, and governments to compensate them for lost money, forced labor, unpaid insurance benefits, stolen property, and human rights violations. Some lawsuits have resulted in multimillion dollar settlements. When Hitler took power in Germany in 1933, the persecution of Jews and other minorities began. The Nazis confiscated their property and valuables, forced them to work as virtual slaves, and finally murdered millions in the death camps. To protect their financial assets, those persecuted were sometimes able to put money into foreign bank accounts, especially in neutral Switzerland. Some also purchased life insurance policies from German and other European companies. In the chaos of the Holocaust, however, records often disappeared, and stolen property passed into the hands of others. The trials at Nuremberg, Tokyo, and elsewhere after World War II focused primarily on punishing top military and political leaders for war crimes and murderous crimes against humanity. Most of these trials did not prosecute banks, companies, and governments that benefited from the theft, economic losses, and other abuses suffered by war victims. In 1953, the new democratic government of West Germany agreed to pay billions of dollars to Holocaust survivors, Jewish communities in Europe, and the Jewish state of Israel. West Germany did this to try to help compensate the Jewish people for the suffering and economic losses caused by Hitler's government. Over the next 40 years, Jewish survivors and the heirs of those killed began to make additional claims against private European banks and companies. Many suspected them of holding money and benefits belonging to Holocaust victims or of having taken advantage of Nazi forced labor during the war. Surprisingly, most of the Holocaust economic claims ended up in American courts in class-action lawsuits (which involve large groups). Jewish survivors and heirs (the plaintiffs) sued European banks and companies (the defendants) for various kinds of economic compensation. The suits were filed in the United States under the authority of the Alien Tort Claims Act of 1789. Passed originally to combat piracy, this 1789 law permits foreigners to sue other foreigners for wrongful acts (torts) that violate international law. Other laws passed in the 1990s also allow U.S. citizens to sue foreign individuals and countries for human rights abuses. Swiss Banks and Nazi Gold Before World War II began, Martin Friedman sent his 17-year-old son, Jacob, to Zurich, Switzerland, several times to deposit money in three Swiss banks. Fearing the worst for his Romanian Jewish family, Martin wanted to protect his family savings. Martin and his wife later perished at the Auschwitz death camp, but Jacob survived. After the war, Jacob tried to locate his father's Swiss bank accounts. But the account numbers had been lost, and without them the banks said nothing could be done. In 1996, Jacob joined with other plaintiffs in one of three class-action lawsuits against several Swiss banks. The plaintiffs, representing thousands of Holocaust survivors and heirs, filed their lawsuits in a New York federal court. They argued that the banks should hand over millions of dollars remaining in Holocaust-era "dormant accounts" that had not been active for many years. The defendant banks resisted turning over any account records, claiming that they were secret under Swiss law. The defendants also argued that identifying most of the accounts would be impossible because some had been closed due to inactivity and others lacked documents to trace them. The Swiss bank case was at a standstill in 1997, when the U.S. government made public a shocking report. According to this report, U.S. investigators after the war discovered that Swiss banks had knowingly received gold looted by the Nazis from the countries they conquered. The banks also took in melted-down gold from jewelry and dental fillings that the Nazis had taken from Holocaust victims. The Swiss banks profited by converting this Nazi gold into national currencies, which the Nazis used to pay for their war effort and their program of Jewish extermination. In the report, the United States estimated that the Swiss banks had received about $200 million in looted gold, plus an uncertain amount of "victim gold." After World War II, the report revealed that following a long period of negotiations, the Swiss agreed in 1952 to return $58 million. A special fund distributed this money to 10 nations that Nazi Germany had occupied. But nothing went to the Holocaust victims. Some historians had written about the Swiss banks receiving Nazi gold. But the public—including politicians, journalists, and even those suing the banks—did not know about it. The release of the report in 1997 created a storm of publicity and criticism against the Swiss banks. American politicians began to threaten Switzerland with a trade boycott unless the banks turned over money still held in the dormant accounts. Finally, in 1998, the Swiss banks agreed to a settlement of $1.25 billion. The money would go to several classes of war victims, including persons claiming ownership of dormant accounts and others demanding compensation for stolen property and forced labor. The job of estimating the number of dormant accounts became easier when a special American-led investigation of the Swiss banks identified up to 54,000 of them. Forced Labor The Swiss bank settlement opened the floodgates for many other war victims' class-action lawsuits. Among them, plaintiffs filed suits against German companies that profited from Nazi forced labor. Hundreds of companies cooperated with the Nazis. Some of them are well-known companies today like Siemens, Volkswagen, and Daimler-Benz (now DaimlerChrysler) In turn, Nazis provided the companies with 18 million Holocaust victims, other civilians, and prisoners of war to work under near slave conditions. In July 2000, the United States mediated a settlement to the forced-labor lawsuits. The government of Germany and 12 large German companies agreed to create a fund of $4.6 billion. This money will compensate civilian forced labor survivors and help educate young Germans about the Holocaust. Life Insurance Benefits Before the war, some Jews (and other persons who were later persecuted) purchased life insurance policies from German and other European companies. The heirs of those who died in the Holocaust found it almost impossible to collect on these policies. Often, the policies themselves had disappeared. But even if a policy existed, the insurance company still required a death certificate. Of course, the Nazis never issued death certificates in their extermination camps. Those claiming insurance benefits for Holocaust victims also filed class-action lawsuits against European companies in U.S. courts. In 1998, the parties in these lawsuits formed a special international commission to develop a "just process" for paying off the insurance policies. OneItalian company has agreed to settle for $100 million. Although several other companies have agreed to establish a settlement fund, they have been slow to accept and pay claims. Other Holocaust related lawsuits have included the recovery of stolen art, and the return or compensation for confiscated Jewish-owned buildings and land. Another suit secured compensation for U.S. citizens imprisoned in Nazi concentration camps. Japanese Comfort Women Some World War II victims have also filed lawsuits against Japan. When the Japanese invaded China in 1937, the military established a system to satisfy the sexual needs of its soldiers. Eventually, the military forced up to 200,000 women in Japanese-occupied countries into official brothels. The so-called "comfort women" often died of beatings, disease, and suicide. Only about 25 per cent survived. After living in silence and shame for many years after the war, a few of the exploited women recently sued the Japanese government. They demanded an apology and compensation for their suffering. A Japanese court ruled against their case on the grounds that the 1951 peace treaty between Japan and the Allies settled all wartime claims. Other victims, however, filed a lawsuit against Japan in a U.S. federal court in 2001. The Compensation Controversy Some have criticized the war victims' lawsuits, especially those related to the Holocaust. American journalist Charles Krauthammer calls the entire Holocaust lawsuit movement a "grotesque scramble for money." He and other critics say that it is unfair to sue and punish companies today for the wrongdoing of previous corporate leaders over 50 years ago. They point out that some of the plaintiffs in these cases are not even Holocaust victims, but their children or grandchildren. The critics wonder when the demand for money will ever end. In many cases, they argue, the lack of documents after all this time often makes it impossible to prove individual claims. Consequently, they say, politicians sometimes have threatened banks and companies with bad publicity to force them to agree to multi-million dollar settlements without going to trial. A Swiss leader once called this "extortion and blackmail." Class-action attorneys traditionally get a percentage of a civil court judgment or settlement. Some lawyers in the Holocaust cases have reaped millions of dollars in legal fees. For example, in the forced labor lawsuit against German companies, one attorney received $6.3 million, and the most any plaintiff got was $7,500. Elan Steinberg, a leader of the World Jewish Congress, charges that "Holocaust survivors are being exploited by a feeding frenzy of fee-grabbing lawyers." Finally, some Jewish leaders today flinch from the idea of reducing the suffering of millions of Holocaust victims to a matter of money. Abraham Foxman, a leader of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League and a Holocaust survivor, worries that the lawsuits will convince many that "the Jews died not because they were Jews, but because they had bank accounts, gold, art, and property." Defenders of war victims' lawsuits disagree with these arguments. Author Itamar Levin says, "The fact that the Holocaust was the worst crime in history does not mean that stolen property should remain in the hands of those to whom it does not belong." Defenders also point out that most of the living Holocaust victims are in their 80s and are dying off at a rapid rate. Therefore, they argue, now is the time to secure economic justice for them before they are all gone. Defenders admit that a few lawyers have made large amounts of money from the class-action lawsuits, but these lawyers would have gotten nothing if they had lost the suits. The defenders point out that this is the only way that people who are not wealthy can afford to bring a lawsuit. In addition, they say, many more lawyers have worked for reduced fees or pro bono (for free). Lisa Stern, an attorney married to the grandson of a Holocaust victim, says, "The lawsuits can restore justice and dignity and correct [a] historical wrong." The defenders argue that suing banks, industrial firms, insurance companies, and governments hopefully will help deter future gross violations of human rights. The Holocaust, they say, began with what some have called the "greatest financial crime in history." This crime, they say, provided the first steps for the horrors that followed. For Discussion and Writing
For Further Information Overview | Nazi
Gold and Swiss Banks | Forced Labor Overview of Major Holocaust Asset Issues From U.S. House of Representatives. Litigating the Holocaust By Michael J. Bazyler, Professor of Law Whittier Law School, Costa Mesa, California, and Research Fellow, Holocaust Educational Trust, London. The Holocaust Restitution Movement in Historical Perspective By Michael J. Bazyler. California Cure for Japanese War Crimes About California law permitting lawsuits for war crimes. A two-part article on the Alien Tort Claims Act by Anthony J. Sebok, Professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School:
Holocaust Litigation and Settlements A web site from a legal firm that does extensive litigation in this area. Chmielewska v. Siemens The complaint in a class-action lawsuit filed in federal court based on the Alien Tort Claims Act. Flashback: Swiss Gold, Nazi Plunder An overview of the scandal and links to articles from the Atlantic Monthly. Nazi Gold From PBS's Frontline. Swiss kept billions in looted Nazi gold From Literature of the Holocaust. For more articles on this site, go to Holocaust Home and scroll through the alphabetical listings. Swiss Banks and Swiss Gold Links from About.com. PBS's Online NewsHour reports:
Book Reviews of Nazi Gold: The Real Story of How the World Plundered Jewish Treasures by George Carpozi Jr.: Holocaust Suvivor and Heir Lawsuits to Recover Swiss Bank Deposits From the Jewish Virtual Library. Holocaust Victim Assets Litigation The official information website for the Holocaust Victim Assets Litigation against Swiss Banks and other Swiss entities. Holocaust Assets and Reparations Links from the Jewish Virtual Library. Switzerland & the Holocaust: Websites Links. Bibliographies of Forced Labor Brief overview and extensive annotated bibliography. Agreement reached to compensate Nazi-era forced laborers From CNN. Holocaust Reparations: German CEOs Unlock Their Vaults A February 1999 report from Business Week. DaimlerChrysler Welcomes Successful Conclusion to Negotiations on Payments for Former Forced Laborers From DaimlerChrysler. German Firms That Used Slave Or Forced Labor During the Nazi Era A list prepared by the American Jewish Committee Berlin Office, December 1999. Nazi Slave Labor Talks Spark Disagreement: Will the proposed USD 5 billion fund compensate all survivors? From Central Europe Review. Nazi Germany and the Corporations Links. Forced Labor Links from the Jewish Virtual Library. Unsettling the Holocaust Two-part article by Anthony J. Sebok on Holocaust settlements mediated by the U.S. government on forced labor in Nazi Germany. Holocaust Era Insurance Claims: Background and Issues From the Jewish Virtual Library. The International Commission on Holocaust Era Insurance Claims Lists of names of insured. Two-Year Program to Resolve Unpaid Life Insurance Claims Announced February 2000. U.S. Welcomes Holocaust Insurance Agreement From U.S. Embassy in Germany, September 2002. Lawyers Target Japanese Abuses From the Washington Post. Japanese Comfort Women Ruling Overturned From CNN. Japanese Comfort Women: A Web Reference Large collection of links. Japanese War Crimes: Comfort Women More links. Cents of Outrage Visiting the death camp at Dora with his father, a reporter wonders why it took 50 years for the corporate and national beneficiaries of the Holocaust to even try paying the Jews back. Holocaust Justice and Financial Accountability Argument in favor of Holocaust lawsuits. By Michael J. Bazyler and William Elperin Lawsuits Pile Up, Matching the List of Atrocities Article questioning the lawsuits. Money-grubbers Reaping Blood Money from Holocaust Column by Charles Krauthammer against class-action lawsuits on the Holocaust. The Dangers of Holocaust Restitution By Abraham H. Foxman, Director of the Anti-Defamation League argues against the lawsuits. A C T I V I T Y Compensation for War Victims: A Debate Debate Question: Should World War II victims get compensation from banks, companies, and governments today for wrongful acts committed many years ago?
Sources Wartime and the
Bill of Rights: the Korematsu Case The "Rape of Nanking" Compensating the
Victims of War © 2002, Constitutional Rights Foundation, 601 South
Kinglsey Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90005, (213) 487-5590 Fax (213) 386-0459 Officers: Jerome L. Coben, President; Publications Committee: Marvin S. Sears, Chairperson; Gerald Chaleff, Alice A. Herald, Gail Midgal Title, Thomas D. Phelps, Peggy Saferstein, Sandor E. Samuels, Deborah C. Saxe, Lois Thompson, Carlton Varner. Staff: Todd Clark, Executive Director; Marshall L. Croddy, Director of Program and Materials Development; Carlton Martz, Writer; Bill Hayes, Editor; Andrew Costly, Production Manager; Lois Thompson, CRF Board Reviewer. |