Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Did US mishandle Nazi Loot?

Dec 11, 2003 9:23PM PST

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
I am grateful for French assistance during American Revolution,
Dec 13, 2003 10:19PM PST

and I think this debt was amply paid in WW I, WW II, and the Cold War. I wish the French would show some appreciation instead of doing things like attacking our currency (under DeGaule sp?), and obstructing our attempts to defend ourselves.

- Collapse -
Could you clairify, Ian...
Dec 14, 2003 7:16AM PST

Ian, could you clairify what you meant by "the 30 years War"? I assume not the "French and Indian War" that was somewhat before 1776, when England and the newly formed America butted heads on the battlefield, and that did not last 30 years. The help of France during that fight was welcome, but you might want to research that help, it was not exactly a mass of troops.
The "War of 1812" did not last 30 years either. In any case, I have a hard time relating the actions of those times to the actions of WWI and WWII in a cause and effect way.

- Collapse -
Its difficult, and I've probably made technical errors of fact,
Dec 14, 2003 11:05AM PST

I'm remembering a USA documentary on your war of independence. Whichever European war it was, perhaps the Hundred Years War, the report was clear that it was the was between England and France that tied up British resources that would otherwise have been applied to yourselves.

Similarly, it was that war that reduced France's ability to fund the "scalping" of Europeans and native Americans south of the border, and reduced the military levies in what is now Canada such that the "USA" freedom fighters took their retribution to Canada and were able to escape.

Ian

- Collapse -
Re:Its difficult, and I've probably made technical errors of fact,
Dec 14, 2003 12:08PM PST

Hi, Ian.

We know the wars you speak of as the "French and Indian Wars;" they lasted from the late 17th through mid-18th Century, and were American extensions of several minor wars in Europe (War of the Augsburg League and the Wars of the Spanish and Austrian Successions chief among them). The 30 years' war was 1618-48 and didn't involve England, which had its own problems at the time (war with the Scots and the beginning of the English Civil War, frinstance).
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
I always told my boy, Dave...
Dec 14, 2003 12:28PM PST

Dave, my boy once asked me for an explanation of who fought who in the French and Indian Wars for his early school work. I told him that basically it was the French and their indians vs. the English and their indians.

- Collapse -
I assume you meant, Ian...
Dec 14, 2003 12:17PM PST

Ian, I assume you meant the Canadian border by south of the border, and the "scalping" in the area that was later called the "Louisiana Purchase". Note along that line if that was the case: In 1762, France had ceded Louisiana to Spain, but by the secret Treaty of San Ildefonso in 1800, the French had regained the area. That's why the "French Quarter" in New Orleans is famous for its Spanish iron work (especially in the balconies).
The U.S. wanted a land base on the Mississippi river and assurance that we would have free access to the river for the obvious reason, it was the trade "superhighway" of that time. When France offered the entire territory, river and all at a bargain price, we were surprised, but needless to say we took the deal.
The War of 1812 had an interesting final battle, the Battle of New Orleans in 1814, in which the British were basically slaughtered. Attacking heavilly fortified positions from a swamp was not exactly a smart military move. The truly interesting thing about it was the fact that the war was already over. Communications left much to be desired way back then.

- Collapse -
While such may seem deplorable ...
Dec 13, 2003 7:31AM PST

... I would point out a few things:

1. One of the people mentioned still has a receipt for a pair of diamond earrings, a couple of gold rings, a gold chain with a medalion and a gold brooch. 10K??

2. I see absolutely no comparison between reparations from governments/companies that directly profited from the war -- e.g. those who hired slave labor, those who harbored and refused to return assets of Holocaust survivors or their families, those who conspired WITH the Nazis, etc.

3. While many have evidence of confiscated goods, I don't think as clear a trail can be traced to this Gold Train as they were able to trace for bank accounts, etc. A receipt for turning a few personal items over is not proof that they found their way onto this particular train. An unfortunate circumstance to be sure, but not one that the US taxpayer should reasonably be accountable for. It seems that auctioning them off to support war relief efforts is at least reasonable if not unpalatable on some level.

4. My mom frequently saw American soldiers in Germany when she was there during the war. Most carried souveniers of their encounters -- e.g. stuff taken from enemy soldiers they had killed, etc. I'm thinking an awful lot of the confiscated stuff ended up in the hands of enemy soldiers and subsequently in the hands of ours. With no possible way of knowing who it came from and returning them, I'm thinking the attitude of the soldier was that these served as trophies of getting the sonuvab!tch that took them and in some small way served justice.

Just my thoughts.

Evie Happy