Majority Rule: Guarantee Of Democracy? Essay, Research Paper
Swiss Bank Controversy: Who? s Money Is It?
It is difficult to conceive of holding everything you of all time owned taken off in a disconnected 2nd. Many Jews experienced this after the old ages of subjugation by the Nazi government. The Jews had everything stripped off: their households, their ownerships, their hereafters, and their self-respect. ? I would give that money off for anybody. I should hold had some relations survive. I mean most of my friends, they had sisters, or cousins, or aunts or person to belong to. I had cipher, ? said Gizella Weisshaus ( Jones 1996 ) . It has been about 50 old ages now since the terminal of the Holocaust. Up until recent times, the subsisters of the Holocaust have decided that they deserve their money that they put into the impersonal Swiss bank histories before the war. They did this to protect their assets from the Nazis. This so provides the contention, fifty old ages subsequently, do the Holocaust subsisters and their households deserve the money back from the Swiss Bankss, or are the Swiss Bankss even responsible for paying back the money? The contention foremost arose with Gizella Weisshaus, when she could non have her male parent? s money after the war ended because she did non cognize her male parent? s bank history figure. When she was a immature miss, her male parent had been taken off to the concentration cantonments. As he was being taken off, he mentioned to her that he had put money off in a Swiss Bank history and that she should travel and claim it when the war ended. Old ages after the war she went back to claim the money, and the Teller told her that with out an history figure she could non make this. They so told her it would take five old ages to research the hibernating history ; therefore she would hold to wait. Her response was, ? It made me angry that even now they claim they need five old ages to happen these hibernating histories, as if 50 old ages wasn? t plenty? ( Jones, 1996 ) . Weisshaus was the first one to raise the ruddy flag of the Swiss Bank contention. Which has three chief sides to the issue, the Swiss side, the United State? s side, and the side of the Holocaust victims. The Swiss believe that they do non owe the subsisters and their households any money because of the Torahs that protect them. They said that they are a impersonal state and that the money put into the histories was non claimed in clip. The United States took the place that if the money belonged to the victims of the Holocaust, the money so should be returned back to them, irrespective if the claim is made one or fifty old ages subsequently. The money belongs to the victims merely as it did before the war. The Holocaust victims? place is that they are owed this money back because it was theirs in the first topographic point before the war, no inquiries asked.
Switzerland was a impersonal state at the clip of the war, and is still a impersonal state at this period of clip. The Swiss place on this contention is that they do non believe that they owe the unclaimed money to the Judaic subsisters and their households, if there is non proper certification to endorse up the claims. The Swiss are analyzing the state of affairs and are unable to reason what happened to the money in the histories and where the money went. The Swiss are really defensive with the allegations from the Judaic subsisters. They do non like being accused of destructing bank histories and being called an? ally? to the Nazis during the war ( Border 2, 1998 ) . That, hence, is the ground why the Bankss are so hesitating to giving the money back to the subsisters. They have a valid alibi why the paperss may be gone after 50 old ages, but the Bankss as a whole, do non like being seen as the bad cats. The Swiss even have Torahs protecting them and their grounds for non returning the money back to the subsisters. ? Switzerland does non supply for the authorities to have the unclaimed belongings of those who have died with out go forthing a will or heirs. Therefore, the Bankss themselves are permitted to retain such money? ( Levin, 1998 ) . After the war, the paperss that showed cogent evidence of histories were destroyed and/or came up losing. The Swiss do non like the repute they are having for this error in the yesteryear. They are analyzing all of the allegations and are determined to acquire to the underside of the job ( Defrago, 1997 ) . They are working with the Jewish, British, German, and United States functionaries in retrieving information and documen
T that would acquit or turn out corruptness of the Swiss histories. Either manner, the Swiss are collaborating and are willing to give the money back to the subsisters, if the paperss hold true to the accusals ( Border 1, 1998 ) . ? The Swiss have pledged that at the terminal of this procedure [ seeking for paperss ] , non one penny will stay in Switzerland that may hold belonged to a victim of the Holocaust, ? said Jeffery Taufield, a spokesman for the Swiss bankers Association ( Jones, 1996 ) . It was merely until a great call from the Holocaust victims that the Swiss agreed to organize a commission to look into the losing bank histories. If the paperss do non look, they propose giving the subsisters one ball amount to be divided up every bit amongst themselves.
Following is the place of the United States. The Unites States of America was an ally during the war. They have a biased place towards the Germans and the Swiss because of their stance on the war. The United states does non listen to the facts presented and is speedy to indicate fingers of who is at mistake. They are lodging with their guns in that they say the Swiss took the money, they were non impersonal during the war, and they owe the Judaic subsisters the money back ( Jones, 1996 ) . The United States claims that the Swiss took the money, and that the instance is cut and dry. The contention should be resolved shortly. The US so appointed functionaries to look into the findings of the paperss. Working along side the US functionaries are functionaries from other states including England and Germany. They are working hard to happen out the facts of the state of affairs. The US besides formed a Senate Banking Committee, which is headed by Senator Alphonse D? Amato. The commission has been keeping hearings with subsisters and their households. They said that they found grounds that supports the claims that the Swiss withheld many sedimentations ( Jones, 1996 ) . The United States besides granted American citizenship to a Swiss guard who was caught firing history paperss. The guard was granted citizenship after he told on the Swiss for what they have been making to the paperss. Yet, even more cogent evidence for the Holocaust victims.
The concluding place is that of the Holocaust victims and their household members. They believe that the money they put into the histories in a? impersonal state? should be given back to them, after all it was theirs in the first topographic point. They say that they deserve the money back no inquiries asked. They believe that what the Swiss did was incorrect in destructing the records, and playing dumb to the whole incident is inexcusable, but the Jews are willing to allow water under the bridges be water under the bridges if the Swiss return the money. They realize that everyone makes errors and is a shamed of things they have done in the yesteryear, they merely want them to bury about the yesteryear and do the right thing. The Jews themselves find the whole procedure of retrieving the money back really painful. They recall the atrocious minutes from the war and some find it is non even deserving traveling through the painful memories all over once more merely to retrieve the money. Another place of the Jews is that they reject steadfastly to the Swiss proposal of giving merely the subsisters one ball amount divided up in equal parts, if proper certification is presented. They dislike this thought because the household of the victims would non be able to claim money from their household and because non everyone had the same sum of money, everyone deserves the money that they put in, non more or less the sum of the original history ( Levin, 1998 ) .
In decision, the contention of the lost Swiss bank histories has many different places and sentiments from states and nationalities involved. There is the Swiss position of that they acknowledge the disappearing of Holocaust victims bank histories and they are seeking to acquire to the underside of the job. The position of the United States, who is standing up for the victims and are seeking to assist them retrieve their money. Finally, there is the position of the Holocaust victims, who are ferocious at the Swiss for the disappearing of their bank histories after the war. They are besides disappointed in the Swiss because they are giving the Holocaust victims a fuss when they try to retrieve their money. They feel that the money is clearly theirs and they want it back. Over all, there are many point of views and sentiments over these issues neither of which are either right or incorrect.