61340 Vorabseiten_e - Unabhängige Expertenkommission Schweiz

claims.» 20 This indicates that the rejection of a claim for «Wiedergutmachung»
enjoyed a broad consensus.
From the fact that Switzerland had not been occupied and remained outside the
Nazi sphere of control, not a few people deduced that the country had nothing
to do with the issue and, even if it had, it would also be entitled to claim
compensation for property lost in the war. From this point of view, claims for
«Wiedergumachung» were to be addressed strictly to the Federal Republic of
Germany (as the constitutional successor to the German Reich), which in turn
should seek recourse from Swiss judicial entities where the claims could be
legally processed.
After 1945, the perception of injustice was only slight in Switzerland. Restitution
was provided – as was the case with the Washington Agreement –
partially and in response to external pressure. However, people wanted nothing
to do with «Wiedergutmachung». This rejection also implicitly involved the
repression of the close economic ties at all levels between Switzerland and
Germany. Criticism of compensation and restitution payments all too readily
gave way to anti-Semitic stereotypes: «Jews are only interested in money» is a
frequently heard cliché which anew inflicts injury upon the victims and their
descendants who are seeking justice. In 1952, Jakob Diggelmann, then
president of the legal commission of the Swiss Bankers Association, stated that
demands for a Registration Decree on unclaimed (also referred to as «heirless»)
assets had entered «an acute stage»:
«The Federation of Jewish Communities is not concerned with transferring
heirless assets to possible claimants but is endeavouring to establish such
heirless property in a special procedure so as to benefit by taking possession
of it. The actions of the opposing party therefore constitute a veritable raid
on assets lying in Switzerland.» 21
Yet Switzerland’s efforts – for instance in the context of the Federal Council’s
Decrees on Looted Assets («Raubgutbeschlüsse») of December 1945 and February
1946 – are part of the international process of «Wiedergutmachung» which
commenced in almost all European countries after the war, in which significant
time-lags and disparities occurred – as again shown precisely in the case of
Switzerland.
From the primacy of reparations to the repayment of pre-war and post-war debts
Reparations involve the «unilateral transfer of economic assets from the
defeated country to the victorious country after a war». 22 Reparations claims are
therefore claims from government to government and do not concern the
429