4 Million Dollar Car Looted In WWII Germany TO Be Returned To Family

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-05-30/mercedes-car-stolen-in-war-belongs-to-heirs-court-says?r=bloomberg

TO sum it up, a rich person living in Nazi Germany had his car stolen by Allies while he was imprisoned and his caretaker was away.

Now, I am not sure if this man was a Nazi or not, but that hardly makes a difference, nor do I think this car was taken for reasons having to do with the Allied war effort.

Frankly, I am impressed that they managed to get the car out of the country, which means it must have been someone high ranking.

So what do you think about this? Should a car be returned or not?

I can't think of a single reason that it shouldn't be.

Aris Khandr:
I can't think of a single reason that it shouldn't be.

Some people argue that the Nazi's also stole various National Treaures from nations they conquered.

It was most likely returned after the war but who knows.

Anyway, I still do not think that is any excuse to deny the family the car. You don't want to be on the same moral field as Nazis do you?

Well it's not like it was of any military, strategic, importance so I don't see why it shouldn't be returned.

Even if they took it to get themselves back to the base, it should have been returned.

I don't really see how there can be much debate here. The allied soldiers illegally took the car from it's rightful owner. Legal possession of the car should go to the nearest descendants of the deceased owner.

That is a lovely car. Unless it's somehow a threat to national security to return the car, I don't see why she shouldn't get it back

SacremPyrobolum:

Anyway, I still do not think that is any excuse to deny the family the car. You don't want to be on the same moral field as Nazis do you?

Comparing vehicle theft to genocide is a bit of an exaggeration, perhaps :P

dyre:
That is a lovely car. Unless it's somehow a threat to national security to return the car, I don't see why she shouldn't get it back

SacremPyrobolum:

Anyway, I still do not think that is any excuse to deny the family the car. You don't want to be on the same moral field as Nazis do you?

Comparing vehicle theft to genocide is a bit of an exaggeration, perhaps :P

I meant on the whole 'Nazis stealing National Treasures' spectrum.

I think it's getting a bit silly. It's so long ago... That descendant won't even be able to remember said car, so it's likely just money-grabbing that's the motive. There'll have been a lot of people who paid for that car, paid a lot for it and had no idea where it is from so they purchased it honestly. If that descendant wins, they pretty much get a multi-million car stolen from them legally.

And that's just wrong.

Making the original thieves pay the value of the car would be the way to go here. Heck, jail them for the relevant war crimes. That's what they did after all, that's what the punishment should be.

SacremPyrobolum:

Frankly, I am impressed that they managed to get the car out of the country, which means it must have been someone high ranking.

False assumption. All you need is access to friends with transport capability. A couple noncoms in the right place could do the job.

So what do you think about this? Should a car be returned or not?

If this was 1950, or if a government had been behind the theft, I'd say yes, give it back.

If this was just a generic theft *shrug*, 70 years would seem to be past the statute of limitations to me. (And I'm not talking legal statute, as that differs by country, but moral)

SacremPyrobolum:

Aris Khandr:
I can't think of a single reason that it shouldn't be.

Some people argue that the Nazi's also stole various National Treaures from nations they conquered.

It was most likely returned after the war but who knows.

Anyway, I still do not think that is any excuse to deny the family the car. You don't want to be on the same moral field as Nazis do you?

Nazi's stole entire art collections in my country, Belgium. After the war, the Americans confiscated them and took them... to the USA. Yeah.

I understood that U.S government took industrial and technology patents worth billions of dollars in today's currency. Is the value of these patents ever going to be reimbursed? Probably not. But of course since only a soldier stole this car, there's nothing stopping the courts from pursuing the case.

Kendarik:

SacremPyrobolum:

Frankly, I am impressed that they managed to get the car out of the country, which means it must have been someone high ranking.

False assumption. All you need is access to friends with transport capability. A couple noncoms in the right place could do the job.

So what do you think about this? Should a car be returned or not?

If this was 1950, or if a government had been behind the theft, I'd say yes, give it back.

If this was just a generic theft *shrug*, 70 years would seem to be past the statute of limitations to me. (And I'm not talking legal statute, as that differs by country, but moral)

It was a collector who bought it. He returned it to Germany for resell. They are not taking the car from a long dead soldier, they are taking it from a collector who happened to buy it.

TheBelgianGuy:

SacremPyrobolum:

Aris Khandr:
I can't think of a single reason that it shouldn't be.

Some people argue that the Nazi's also stole various National Treaures from nations they conquered.

It was most likely returned after the war but who knows.

Anyway, I still do not think that is any excuse to deny the family the car. You don't want to be on the same moral field as Nazis do you?

Nazi's stole entire art collections in my country, Belgium. After the war, the Americans confiscated them and took them... to the USA. Yeah.

Yeah, most of our nations don't really get to say anything here, considered we did the exact same things for both world wars.

Sorry, people-who-lost-their-national-treasures.
Most western nations are dicks.

theonewhois3:
there's nothing stopping the courts from pursuing the case.

There is actual: customs.

And not in the sense of border customs, but most legal systems recognize something like the law of custom, which means that if a situation exists uncontested for a long period of time, it becomes legal even if it violates the letter of the law. Think for instance placing a fence in your backyard 5 centimetres off the ground you've purchased with the house, onto the neighbour's plot. Normally you can demand it be removed, but if the sitution has existed for over 20 years uncontested, you have to pay the other neighbour to have the fence moved, and can't remove it without his consent.

In this case that's relevant in the sense that the car has had several legitimate owners, and the current owner stands to lose millions of his hard earned cash over a claim he didn't know about.
The demanding party however has not considered this important enough to do something about it for almost 70 years, pretty much voiding their claim. She does not perceive having that car, has no connection too it, and doesn't miss its value either.

In that situation, seizing the car is little else than legalised theft, and heavily unfair considering the lack of vested interest of the demanding party, and the potential loss for the defending party if they lose.

GiglameshSoulEater:

Most western nations are dicks.

Fixed that for you.

In any case, it's a matter of course that it should be returned to its rightful owners. All the treasures stolen from Germany by the Allies should likewise be returned, as should those stolen by Germany and either kept there after the war or removed to a place that was not their origin.

mdk31:
In any case, it's a matter of course that it should be returned to its rightful owners. All the treasures stolen from Germany by the Allies should likewise be returned, as should those stolen by Germany and either kept there after the war or removed to a place that was not their origin.

Question: What about the rightfull owner who stands to be legally robbed for millions worth in that scenario?

GiglameshSoulEater:
Yeah, most of our nations don't really get to say anything here, considered we did the exact same things for both world wars.

Sorry, people-who-lost-their-national-treasures.
Most western nations are dicks.

*clears throat* Speak for yourself, I'm Swedish!

Say what you want about our track record in world wars, but we damn sure didn't rape and pillage!

Elcarsh:

GiglameshSoulEater:
Yeah, most of our nations don't really get to say anything here, considered we did the exact same things for both world wars.

Sorry, people-who-lost-their-national-treasures.
Most western nations are dicks.

*clears throat* Speak for yourself, I'm Swedish!

Say what you want about our track record in world wars, but we damn sure didn't rape and pillage!

Well, suppose we got our fill during the Thirty Years War and on Karl XII's little excursions... Lots of rape and pillage for everyone, it was practically proper conduct in wars back then. Not to mention the repressions in SkŚne and the crusades against pagan tribes in Finland and Lithuania and whatnot before then.
Hell, one interesting tidbit; German parents around the 17'th century used to scare their children to behave by saying "Now, GŁnther, do as I say, or the Swede will come and take ye!"

So basically, we just quit being warmongers before it was cool, yo. Like Enlightenment-era hipsters. :P

Muspelheim:
Hell, one interesting tidbit; German parents around the 17'th century used to scare their children to behave by saying "Now, GŁnther, do as I say, or the Swede will come and take ye!"

Sounds suspiciously similar to modern US republican rhetoric.

Muspelheim:
So basically, we just quit being warmongers before it was cool, yo. Like Enlightenment-era hipsters. :P

We raped and pillaged while it was still underground!

Ultratwinkie:

Kendarik:

SacremPyrobolum:

Frankly, I am impressed that they managed to get the car out of the country, which means it must have been someone high ranking.

False assumption. All you need is access to friends with transport capability. A couple noncoms in the right place could do the job.

So what do you think about this? Should a car be returned or not?

If this was 1950, or if a government had been behind the theft, I'd say yes, give it back.

If this was just a generic theft *shrug*, 70 years would seem to be past the statute of limitations to me. (And I'm not talking legal statute, as that differs by country, but moral)

It was a collector who bought it. He returned it to Germany for resell. They are not taking the car from a long dead soldier, they are taking it from a collector who happened to buy it.

Who is selling it doesn't matter.

They question is should a 70 year old stolen item still be returned to the original owner.

Kendarik:

Ultratwinkie:

Kendarik:

False assumption. All you need is access to friends with transport capability. A couple noncoms in the right place could do the job.

If this was 1950, or if a government had been behind the theft, I'd say yes, give it back.

If this was just a generic theft *shrug*, 70 years would seem to be past the statute of limitations to me. (And I'm not talking legal statute, as that differs by country, but moral)

It was a collector who bought it. He returned it to Germany for resell. They are not taking the car from a long dead soldier, they are taking it from a collector who happened to buy it.

Who is selling it doesn't matter.

They question is should a 70 year old stolen item still be returned to the original owner.

Age no longer matters. It doesn't even factor into the discussion. I bet that if you had something stolen you would want it back no matter what.

To cite this arbitrary "morality" you claim to have is retarded.

It was stolen, it was reclaimed. That's all there was to it.

Ultratwinkie:

Kendarik:

Ultratwinkie:

It was a collector who bought it. He returned it to Germany for resell. They are not taking the car from a long dead soldier, they are taking it from a collector who happened to buy it.

Who is selling it doesn't matter.

They question is should a 70 year old stolen item still be returned to the original owner.

Age no longer matters. It doesn't even factor into the discussion. I bet that if you had something stolen you would want it back no matter what.

To cite this arbitrary "morality" you claim to have is retarded.

It was stolen, it was reclaimed. That's all there was to it.

Yeah, I don't agree with that. That's what insurance is for.

I think the modern game of trying to go back centuries and "fix" things is wrong. If you really tried to do that no one would own anything because someone probably "stole" it from someone else at some point. Just try figuring out the land and see if you can decide who owns that.

Kendarik:

Ultratwinkie:

Kendarik:

Who is selling it doesn't matter.

They question is should a 70 year old stolen item still be returned to the original owner.

Age no longer matters. It doesn't even factor into the discussion. I bet that if you had something stolen you would want it back no matter what.

To cite this arbitrary "morality" you claim to have is retarded.

It was stolen, it was reclaimed. That's all there was to it.

Yeah, I don't agree with that. That's what insurance is for.

I think the modern game of trying to go back centuries and "fix" things is wrong. If you really tried to do that no one would own anything because someone probably "stole" it from someone else at some point. Just try figuring out the land and see if you can decide who owns that.

You are thinking too much into this. Its an object that was stolen from them by force. Land is something entirely different.

Stop trying to equate the morality for land with a morality of a stolen car. Its stupid, not to mention that your morality of "time makes right" is contrived and is just an appeal to tradition.

Appeals to tradition never work, and its just some bullshit excuse to try to excuse a crime.

Ultratwinkie:

Kendarik:

Ultratwinkie:

Age no longer matters. It doesn't even factor into the discussion. I bet that if you had something stolen you would want it back no matter what.

To cite this arbitrary "morality" you claim to have is retarded.

It was stolen, it was reclaimed. That's all there was to it.

Yeah, I don't agree with that. That's what insurance is for.

I think the modern game of trying to go back centuries and "fix" things is wrong. If you really tried to do that no one would own anything because someone probably "stole" it from someone else at some point. Just try figuring out the land and see if you can decide who owns that.

You are thinking too much into this. Its an object that was stolen from them by force. Land is something entirely different.

Stop trying to equate the morality for land with a morality of a stolen car.

Ok, why are they different? Property is property.

Kendarik:

Ultratwinkie:

Kendarik:

Yeah, I don't agree with that. That's what insurance is for.

I think the modern game of trying to go back centuries and "fix" things is wrong. If you really tried to do that no one would own anything because someone probably "stole" it from someone else at some point. Just try figuring out the land and see if you can decide who owns that.

You are thinking too much into this. Its an object that was stolen from them by force. Land is something entirely different.

Stop trying to equate the morality for land with a morality of a stolen car.

Ok, why are they different? Property is property.

You can't go into a store and buy land outright then drive the land around town, for one.

There is no "special land" like the Mercedes is. A rich man's car is a rich man's car. Very few are like it. If a crate of bullion was stolen, you would still want it back 70 years later. That's what that car is, very few people could afford something that rare.

This "time makes right" crap never worked. It didn't work for slavery. It didn't work for racism. It didn't work for sexism. It certaintly wont work here.

You can get land anywhere. You can't get a rich man's car. Because they were few in number to begin with.

Ultratwinkie:

Kendarik:

Ultratwinkie:

You are thinking too much into this. Its an object that was stolen from them by force. Land is something entirely different.

Stop trying to equate the morality for land with a morality of a stolen car.

Ok, why are they different? Property is property.

You can't go into a store and buy land outright then drive the land around town, for one.

There is no "special land" like the Mercedes is. A rich man's car is a rich man's car. Very few are like it. If a crate of bullion was stolen, you would still want it back 70 years later. That's what that car is, very few people could afford something that rare.

This "time makes right" crap never worked. It didn't work for slavery. It didn't work for racism. It didn't work for sexism. It certaintly wont work here.

You can get land anywhere. You can't get a rich man's car. Because they were few in number to begin with.

Your logic doesn't follow.

Land very much can be special. Land with good resources is very rare and non replacable for example. Like that car, its a finite quanity. Those bars of gold you think should be returned, well they can come out of stolen land. If land was stolen, I'd want it back later just as much as a block of gold.

You have no real reason to treat land differently.

And its not a matter of "time makes it right". It's that after a period of time that is long enough justice is probably not served anymore by the "restitution". You want to go after someone for the loss, go find that original thief (although in many countries that crime is legally forgiven by time as well).

Kendarik:

Ultratwinkie:

Kendarik:

Ok, why are they different? Property is property.

You can't go into a store and buy land outright then drive the land around town, for one.

There is no "special land" like the Mercedes is. A rich man's car is a rich man's car. Very few are like it. If a crate of bullion was stolen, you would still want it back 70 years later. That's what that car is, very few people could afford something that rare.

This "time makes right" crap never worked. It didn't work for slavery. It didn't work for racism. It didn't work for sexism. It certaintly wont work here.

You can get land anywhere. You can't get a rich man's car. Because they were few in number to begin with.

Your logic doesn't follow.

Land very much can be special. Land with good resources is very rare and non replacable for example. Like that car, its a finite quanity. Those bars of gold you think should be returned, well they can come out of stolen land. If land was stolen, I'd want it back later just as much as a block of gold.

You have no real reason to treat land differently.

And its not a matter of "time makes it right". It's that after a period of time that is long enough justice is probably not served anymore by the "restitution". You want to go after someone for the loss, go find that original thief (although in many countries that crime is legally forgiven by time as well).

And land with resources only matters to countries would exploit them. They hardly care about rare cars. You are confusing countries with people.

A person would want a car back, especially if its tied with a family member. They would want something that was special to them back. As I said, the bullion crate analogy still applies. Countries have bullion crates in abundance. People do not.

They should return the car. I don't give two shits if the guy was a Nazi or not. He paid for it with his own money and his descends should get the car.

Muspelheim:
So basically, we just quit being warmongers before it was cool, yo. Like Enlightenment-era hipsters. :P

To be fair, you were the nicest and least pillaging of the warmongers in that period of time.

 

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked