61340 Vorabseiten_e - Unabhängige Expertenkommission Schweiz

sation in full knowledge of the wrong that had been done. In the sources which
document the reasoning of Swiss firms with regard to the acquisition of Jewish
property there is hardly any evidence of ethical considerations. This applies even
to Hoffmann-La Roche, a firm which refused five different offers of take-overs
between 1933 and 1938 and withdrew from the purchase of a building in 1940
after the original owner lodged an objection: only economic, political and legal
considerations are documented. 57 In contrast to the issue of personnel policy in
the subsidiaries, there are very few indications that anti-Semitism played a role
in the acquisition of Jewish property. The overriding element was commercial
advantage, the «extremely favourable» conditions which attracted many firms,
as for example the arms manufacturer Emil Bührle. 58 In summer 1941 the
Union Bank of Switzerland (Schweizerische Bankgesellschaft, SBG), acting on
behalf of Wilhelm von Gutmann, an Austrian banker who lived in Chur
(Switzerland), offered Bührle von Gutmann’s shares in the Czech firm
Witkowitz Bergbau- und Eisenhüttengewerkschaft. The bank was acting on the
assumption that, from the point of view of setting a price, «a Swiss purchaser
should not be in a worse position than a German purchaser and that the basic
price as indicated corresponds roughly to present-day German calculations». 59
The value of the Witkowitz business was at the time between 75 and
80 million US dollars; the purchase price was set at 20 million US dollars.
Shortly afterwards the managing director, Alfred Schaefer, approached Bührle
again on behalf of the Union Bank and told him that the vendors were reckoning
on a valuation at 30 million US dollars, but that he thought that this could be
brought down to 25 million US dollars. In October 1941, Bührle replied that
«if one knows what the Witkowitz Co. represents, and I have a pretty good idea
from visiting the plant myself, one can only say that this is a real bargain».
Bührle did not in fact go ahead with the transaction, mainly since, although the
amount asked was low compared with the real value of the business, in absolute
terms it was a high price; «the enormous risk involved in this investment has
nothing to do with the company itself but is purely a question of current
politics». 60
Swiss debtors of Jewish business partners within Nazi-controlled territory
Some Jewish business partners within Nazi-controlled territory possessed bank
assets in Switzerland or could call in debts arising from deliveries to Swiss firms.
When so-called provisional administrators were appointed to run their
companies the question arose as to whether the claims made by the former
owners or those of the provisional administrators were valid.
With regard to the liquidation of bank assets, the Swiss banks agreed in May
1938, after the «Anschluss», on a common future strategy. Some of the banks
337