Originally posted by Gryffen

Yes, hes the SON of a Nazi Industrialist, doesnt actually mean he had anything to do with his fathers ways!!

He is not responsible for his fathers ways,

BUT

all the money he had inherited came from slave work during the Nazi time.





[edit on 23-9-2004 by Riwka]

I agree...which is why i have mixed view about this.

Yes...hes showing of his family wealth...earned on the backs of thousands of war slaves.

No...he didnt have anything to do with his fathers work.

very tricky descision...but i oppose what NAZI stands for...should see me get into a debate against Nazi germany...i pound people to dust.

whats everyone elses opinions.

if its not plundered artwork,whats the prob.how many people around the world have made their fortune off the sweat of others.did flick get rich off of the nazi movement or was he rich before and just backed the nazi party.forgive my ignorance.

His father collected wealth through his companies...he was industrialist.

also his payments for workin with the Nazi movement were very good and over the years it would have built up....also i think he was rich family too.

It's not like he exploited the people himself. The money and art just landed in his lap. He didn't have a choice as to whose son he is. He seems to be trying to clear HIS own family name. Hey, if people want to see the art, let them. If you don't want to see it, don't.

DE

Id have to say it's not his sons fault that he is heir to his fathers money
why focus on the past of things. the show is about the art not the money just wish I had a chance to see it looks a very impressive collection aswell.

The private collection of Friedrich Christian Flick is payed by the Flick-slaves.

Friedrich Christian Flick never tried to give some of the stolen money back to the slaves which work made his father a rich man.

THAT is HIS fault

If his artwork is good, then why not just appreciate it? So his family has a bad history, who cares? If he is a right-wing nazi then ok, there's a problem, but if he's just showing / selling artwork that his family have in their possession what's the problem? Ok, so they made their fortunes from slaves....how is selling this artwork hurting the victims of the nazis? If he's a smart person he will donate a good chunk of any profits to a worthwhile cause to get some of the more extreme lets-attack-anyone-who-has-even-a-hint-of-a-bad-history crowd off his back... and for the record, yes, it was horrible what the nazi's did, and yes those responsible should be punished in the worst possible way....but their descendants shouldn't...

Originally posted by LordGoofus

but their descendants shouldn't...

.....and descendants should also not give back SOME of the money their fathers could make ONLY because they let slaves work for them?

Friedrich Flick, his grandfather, used thousands of women as slave labourers in his explosives factory at Stadtallendorf during the Second World War.

Friedrich Christian Flicks family NEVER payed anything back, he himself also refused to make compensation payments to Nazi slave labour victims

You think it is ok instead of giving stolen money back to pay artwork with that blood- money?

Originally posted by Se7en

why focus on the past of things

Those of the former slaves who are stll living, are about 75+ years old now.

Would you argue like that if your mum or grandmother would have been one of those forced to be a slave?

Wait! Did most nations not build their wealth on the backs of slavery? Most countries either imported slaves to do the menial work or enslaved the native inhabitants of the country they annexed. Most of Africa was plundered so that European countries could build wealth - of people and of wealth (diamonds /gold) etc. So I guess if you are of European descent you have no right to show off your wealth?

Lets stick to a common analogy here, what happened in Nazi Germany was horrific, as horrific as what happened in Africa and South America.

Ok I'll get flamed for this but seriously think about it. This guy, was NOT directly responsible for the war atrocities. He had absolutely NO part in what happened, thus he has no direct responsibility to the victims. I live in australia. Does that mean I have to pay the aboriginal people for the land I now live on which was stolen from them, even though I did not directly steal it? American colonists killed thounsands upon thousands of indians. Does that mean every american now should pay compensation to the indians even though they were never directly involved in the slaughter? If you think with your heart, then you will come to the conclusion yes, they should by assocation with the people who DID cause these attrocities pay compensation. But if you think with your head & use logic, logically they have no obligation to pay compensation for something they were not involved in, thus this guy doesn't owe anyone anything. He is probably just as ashamed about his families past as we are.