61340 Vorabseiten_e - Unabhängige Expertenkommission Schweiz

and looting, and to thereby obtain further evidence for a fair restitution and
reparations policy.
Because in the early post-war years the questions of restitution and reparations
were predominantly dealt with on an intergovernmental level according to
international law, there was a lack of sensitivity towards the position of the
individuals who had become victims. During the war years, the question of
compensating the victims of Nazi persecution individually was discussed only
tentatively between the United States and its Allies in connection with the issue
of reparations. 27 In fact, an initiative to assist non-repatriable refugees displaced
by the Nazi regime was undertaken shortly after the war ended. Otherwise,
however, it was government claims that took centre stage. Whether gold or
bank accounts were involved, it was all about «restitution to nations», while
«restitution to victims» was only of marginal importance.
After 1946, the Western Allies’ interest in reparations abated as they began to
provide aid for the people of Europe. They initiated an economic reconstruction
programme which was subsequently formalised in the Marshall Plan. In the
hardening confrontation with the Soviet Union, the connection between a
healthy economy and stable democracy was stressed. For instance, when the
Federal Republic of Germany was founded in 1949, there was no more
discussion of a reparations agreement. Now, only claims which had existed
before 1939 or which had arisen after 1945 in the context of reconstruction
projects were the subject of negotiations. Whereas in the former case it was a
question of Germany’s pre-war debts, the latter mainly concerned the partial
repayment of the generous Marshall Plan aid (of which a little over one-third
was eventually to be repaid). This shift was connected to the fact that the
heading under which Germany made payments did not matter to the Allies. At
the same time, having learned a lesson from the First World War, they did not
want to impose an excessive burden on the German economy. Instead, they
wanted to match the payments to the losers’ level of economic performance.
This approach, which was also marked by the intensification of the Cold War,
was – as Jörg Fisch observed – accompanied by «discrimination towards the
victims to the benefit of the funders». «West-German economic efficiency» was
«used to benefit the creditors rather than the war victims». 28 Fund-holders and
funders therefore were given privileged status. Friedrich Jerchow pointed out
that countries like Switzerland, which had not participated in the reparations
debate at all, also benefited from this process. He observed that «ultimately,
German reparations from current production were dispensed with in order to
satisfy Germany’s pre-war creditors, most of whom were domiciled in the US,
the Netherlands, and Switzerland». 29 Switzerland’s part in Germany’s pre-war
debts represented 15% of the total.
431