61340 Vorabseiten_e - Unabhängige Expertenkommission Schweiz

might receive assistance through his Swiss contact. For their part, the Swiss
subsidiaries were able to declare that they were not Jewish and thus continue to
operate. The fact that assistance and profit were not mutually exclusive on the
Swiss side can be seen in the repurchase made by Bally as mentioned above.
Shareholder Hugo Gänsler left Austria on 17 March 1938 heading for
Switzerland and later emigrated to the United States, where he worked for a few
years for the American subsidiary of Bally. In 1946, he brought a compensation
claim before the American courts against both Bally’s Austrian lawyer
Engelbert Zinsler and C. F. Bally AG in Zurich. In order to «free Bally from the
stigma of Aryanisation», Gänsler was awarded 32,500 US dollars as part of a
settlement for the 1938 sale of his shares. In exchange, he undertook to renounce
all further claims against C. F. Bally AG and its subsidiaries. 40
We have examined the question of repurchased shares; the crucial factor in
assessing the behaviour of Swiss subsidiaries within Nazi-controlled territory is
staff policy. In almost every case, Jewish Board members, directors and in the
end, however, all Jewish employees had to be dismissed. There was considerable
room to manoeuvre, however, as regards the timing of the dismissals and the
way in which people were fired. Some firms kept their Jewish employees, who
often possessed specific knowledge that was important to the company, as long
as possible. Some firms made a point of seeing to it that their Jewish employees
received suitable severance pay and in several cases members of the parent
company’s management helped Jewish Board members, directors or senior
managers from their subsidiaries to emigrate. In most cases, however, personnel
policy was characterised by undue hurry to implement anti-Jewish measures at
a time when there was in fact no official pressure to do so, but pressure of a social
and indeed commercial character. Most of the statements made by Swiss
companies stress that one had to adapt to the new situation as quickly as
possible. Systematic endeavours to use the existing manoeuvring leeway for the
benefit of Jewish employees were rare.
Take-overs and attempted take-overs of Jewish companies and real property by
Swiss firms: three examples
The Annual Report of the Swiss Consulate General in Vienna for the year 1938
states that «numerous letters from people in Switzerland enquiring about the
possibility of taking over Jewish businesses in Austria had to be answered». 41 It
would appear that the plight of one group kindled the interest of the other.
Unfortunately, the relevant documents from the Consulate General are no
longer available so that it is possible to comment neither on the number nor on
the character of such enquiries. On the basis of our investigations, however, it
is possible to give more details about this interest in Austrian businesses. 42
331