Glossary

Move the mouse pointer over a red word in the main text, to view the glossary entry for this word.

Federal Compensation Law (1956)

 a  Article 5 of the London Debt Agreement:

“A review of the claims arising out of World War II that have been raised by states that were at war with Germany or whose territory was occupied by Germany, and by nationals of these states, against the Reich and agencies or individuals acting on behalf of the Reich [...] is tabled until the final settlement of the reparations question.”

(Agreement on German External Debts, February 27, 1953, Bundesgesetzblatt, 1953, Part  II, p. 340. A facsimile is to be found in Klaus Barwig / Günter Saathoff / Nicole Weyde, eds.: Entschädigung für NS-Zwangsarbeit. Rechtliche, historische und politische Aspekte (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 1998), pp. 215–217. (Transl. KL))

In July 1953, using the term Bundesergänzungsgesetz (Federal Supplementary Law), the German Bundestag passed the first national-level compensation law for people who were forced to undergo expropriation, forced labor, deportation, and imprisonment in camps during the Nazi era. In 1956, it was amended and renamed the Bundesentschädigungsgesetz (BEG, Federal Compensation Law), owing to numerous interventions by the Western Allies and the Claims Conference, which were directed primarily at the meagerness of the benefits intended for victims of the Nazis and at the exclusion of foreign victims of Nazi persecution. But the BEG held fast to the so-called subjective and personal territoriality principle, according to which benefits could be claimed only by victims of the Nazis who were residents of the FRG or West Berlin on the effective date of December 31, 1952 (originally, January 1, 1947), or had lived within the 1937 borders of the German Reich and taken up residence in the FRG or West Berlin by the effective date. From the outset, therefore, the provisions excluded from compensation all those people in the countries occupied by Germany during World War II who had been hunted by the death squads of the Wehrmacht and the SS and had not left their home countries.

 

Also “excluded from compensation” were the following groups:[1]

 

  1. Victims of forcible sterilizations—the Reparations Committee of the Bundestag, citing opinions of former Nazi “racial hygienists,” pointed out that the 1933 Law for the Prevention of Genetically Diseased Offspring (Gesetz zur Verhütung erbkranken Nachwuchses) did not contravene constitutional principles and that the “genetic health courts” (Erbgesundheitsgerichte) had made no decisions that were unlawful or negligent.
  1. People terrorized by the Nazis because of deviant social behavior (so-called antisocial elements), as well as the Sinti and Roma—the latter, the Federal Supreme Court (BGH) claimed in a decision in principle on January 7, 1956, had been persecuted not for “reasons of race, religious belief, or worldview” (§ 1 BEG) but for their “antisocial traits.” The BGH was of the opinion that race-based persecution occurred only from 1943 on, when the Sinti and Roma began to be sent to the Auschwitz concentration camp.
  1. Communists—they were denied compensation in accordance with § 6 BEG, as they were considered enemies of the “basic free and democratic order.”
  1. Homosexuals—in the FRG, too, they were threatened with criminal prosecution, as § 175 of the criminal code, sharpened by the Nazis, continued in force until the criminal law reform of 1969; homosexuality remained a punishable offense until the criminal law reform of 1973.

Based on the BEG, former forced laborers were compensated only if they were members of the groups persecuted for racial, political, or religious reasons and also met the above-mentioned residence and deadline requirements, which was not the case for the overwhelming majority. Finally, after the claim filed by the Pole Leon Staucher, a former concentration camp inmate, on February 26, 1953, the demand for payment of withheld wages for performance of forced labor was adversely decided by the Federal Supreme Court, citing Article 5 of the London Debt Agreement  a . The interpretation of Article 5, on which the Dutch negotiating committee also foundered in its endeavor to support the wage claims of Dutch citizens who were former concentration camp prisoners against German employers such as I.G. Farbenindustrie AG, showed “that Art. 5 was intended to safeguard not only the Federal Republic as a state but also the economy and currency of the Federal Republic.”[2]

(GK/PEH; transl. KL)



Download

[pdf] Peer Heinelt_Financial Compensation for Nazi Forced Laborers 

 

Source

Agreement on German External Debts, February 27, 1953, Bundesgesetzblatt, 1953, Part  II, p. 340. A facsimile is to be found in Klaus Barwig / Günter Saathoff / Nicole Weyde, eds.: Entschädigung für NS-Zwangsarbeit. Rechtliche, historische und politische Aspekte. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 1998, pp. 215–217.

 

Literature

Barwig, Klaus / Saathoff, Günter / Weyde, Nicole, eds.: Entschädigung für NS-Zwangsarbeit. Rechtliche, historische und politische Aspekte. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 1998.

Herbert, Ulrich: “Nicht entschädigungsfähig? Die Wiedergutmachungsansprüche der Ausländer.” In: Ludolf Herbst / Constantin Goschler, eds.: Wiedergutmachung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Munich: Oldenbourg, 1989, pp. 273–302.

Hockerts, Hans Günter: “Die Entschädigung für NS-Verfolgte in West- und Osteuropa. Eine einführende Skizze.” In: Hans Günter Hockerts / Claudia Moisel / Tobias Winstel, eds.: Grenzen der Wiedergutmachung. Die Entschädigung für NS-Verfolgte in West- und Osteuropa 1945–2000. Göttingen: Wallstein, 2006, pp. 7–58.

Pawlita, Cornelius: „Wiedergutmachung“ als Rechtsfrage? Die politische und juristische Auseinandersetzung um Entschädigung für die Opfer nationalsozialistischer Verfolgung (1945 bis 1990). Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1993.

Pross, Christian: Paying for the Past: The Struggle over Reparations for Surviving Victims of the Nazi Terror. Baltimore/London: Johns Hopkins UP, 1998.

[1] Detailed evidence regarding the individual groups listed below is found in Peer Heinelt: “Die Entschädigung der NS-Zwangsarbeiterinnen und Zwangsarbeiter” ([pdf] Peer Heinelt_Die Entschädigung der NS-Zwangsarbeiterinnen und -Zwangsarbeiter), pp. 11ff.

[2] Federal Supreme Court (BGH) decision of February 26, 1963, in: Rechtsprechung zur Wiedergutmachung, 1963, pp. 525–528, cited in Ulrich Herbert: “Nicht entschädigungsfähig? Die Wiedergutmachungsansprüche der Ausländer.” In: Ludolf Herbst and Constantin Goschler, eds.: Wiedergutmachung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Munich: Oldenbourg, 1989), pp. 273–302, here p. 282. (Translated by KL)