Second Generation Holocaust Survivors Sue For Damages

Trust me, I am very familiar with the Geneva Convention and it is not "international law".

 

Got that right. The US seem to forget it all the time.

I agree that they may deserve some compensation but then so should the families of the 20 million Russians killed by the nazis and what about the Palestinians, the Iraqis, the Chinese.

There are people in Rwanda suffering from a genocide in 1994 and they are more entitled to compensation. They have actually suffered and are not 'second generation'

When will it end? Third, fourth, fifth, sixth generation?

 

I personally don't believe the second generation even qualifies as a "Holocaust survivor" in the first place.. there are plenty more people who deserve compensation for things they've actually suffered first hand IMO.

 

" ...... The Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols are part of international humanitarian law – a whole system of legal safeguards that cover the way wars may be fought and the protection of individuals. They specifically protect people who do not take part in the fighting (civilians, medics, chaplains, aid workers) and those who can no longer fight (wounded, sick and shipwrecked troops, prisoners of war). The Conventions and their Protocols call for measures to be taken to prevent (or put an end to) what are known as "grave breaches"; those responsible for breaches must be punished.
The Geneva Conventions have been acceded to by 194 States and enjoy universal acceptance.

. .........."

http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/genevaconventions

 

I think what you are missing here is that it is not mandatory for a country to follow the Geneva Convention. Countries choose to abide by it or not.

 

This is a wrong thing to do. It could establish a dangerous precedent so that a third, fourth and so on generation could sue for mental trauma. Enough is enough.

 

Should I trust you on this one too?

 

Why don't you go sneek into North Korea and see about this International Law

 

I did some reseach to double check if your statement was true:

The U.S. ratified all the Geneva Conventions

" The Red Cross movement (later renamed the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement) spearheaded the first Geneva Convention in 1864. The purpose of this first treaty was to protect wounded soldiers and those caring for them during times of war. Twelve nations signed the initial document. Over the following decades, more countries agreed to the convention.

In 1882, U.S. President Chester Arthur signed the treaty, making the U.S. the 32nd nation to do so. The U.S. Senate ratified it shortly thereafter. At the same time, the American Association of the Red Cross was formed (many nations had begun to create their own Red Cross organizations in concert with the first Geneva Convention).

The second Geneva Convention in 1907 extended protection to wounded armed forces at sea and to shipwreck victims. The third convention in 1929 detailed the humane treatment of prisoners of war. The fourth convention in 1949 revised the previous conventions and addressed the rights of civilians in times of war. This convention is said to be the cornerstone of modern humanitarian law. It was amended in 1977 with two protocols that further protect civilians during wartime and address armed conflicts within a nation.

According to the Red Cross/Red Crescent, the U.S. has signed each of these international agreements. However, a signature does not bind a nation to the treaty unless the document has also been ratified by that nation (in the U.S., Congress ratifies such treaties). Generally, these treaties are open for signature for a limited time period after they're written. The U.S. ratified all the Geneva Conventions with the exception of the two protocols of 1977. ...."


The question now is why should a country ratify a treaty and when that treaty does not fit her agenda break it outright?

 

Got your point.
P.S.
(Won't waste any more time answering your posts.)

 

This is utterly stupid and selfish in every single way. As some people mentioned in this thread, there are many people who deserve help for what they are going through right now. And what does the current German government have to do with what the criminal Nazis did? This would make sense if the first generation asked for it. This second generation lived their lives in peaceful countries and had to go through none of what their parents went through. Let them cut the crap.

If they're feeling generous, let me know. Two weeks ago my street in Iraq was half burned by a battle between the criminal insurgents and the US army. I have neighbors who lost everything and my family itself lost the second roof of the house and our car.

Let those selfish know how lucky they are for not having to go through what their parents went through and let them thank God for that.

 

I agree 100%.. thanks for your comments and I'm personally sorry to see your loss.. hope things work out for you and your family.

 

How rediculous, I'm assuming that if this is allowed that the Japanese can also sue America because of the damage caused by the atom bomb? Decendants of slaves can sue the US and UK for the slave trade, I might even have a go at suing the Italians and Norwegens for the Roman and Viking invasions of Britain.

I'm not a big ban of the blame and sue culture, the more it's cracked down upon the better it'll be for everybody. While the original intentions may be noble, there are far too many people who just smell the whiff of a quick buck.

 

I'd have to agree with you on that one.
I see it as an act to pull some money out of the German government, nothing more.

 

i think thats the smell of BS