BRUSSELS — It certainly sounded scandalous: Germany was paying pensions to Belgians for collaborating with the Nazi occupation during World War II. Politicians and news organizations expressed their outrage noisily.
It became clear eventually that aspects of the stories about “Nazi pensions” were exaggerated, misleading or just plain false — but not before there had been days of provocative headlines and outcry across Europe, particularly in Belgium. There was even action last week in the Belgian Parliament, whose foreign affairs committee passed a resolution urging the government to seek more information from Berlin and to conduct a binational investigation.
The people behind the resolution say they still believe that war criminals have collected payments from the German government since the war, and historians say they might be right. But just who has received them remains a secret under German law, though the number who are still alive, nearly 74 years after the war’s end, is small.
According to the German government, just 18 recipients live in Belgium — and they might not all be Belgian.
Berlin has struggled to set the record straight without seeming to be defensive or, worse yet, to deny German culpability.
“This is a sensitive subject,” said Martin Kotthaus, the German ambassador to Belgium. “Nobody, nothing can compensate for the pain that German troops inflicted on Belgium and Europe in general — Belgium was invaded twice by Germany and tens of thousands of Jews were murdered.”
“It is not the position of the German ambassador to deal out judgments,” Mr. Kotthaus added, “but we do feel responsible to lessen the pain and to set out the facts.”
Since the 1940s, those wounded while serving in the German military during the war have received payments as compensation — not, technically, a pension. From the beginning, some of those people have been citizens of countries other than Germany, including nations the Germans occupied, but the payment program does not discriminate by nationality.
An explanatory introduction to the Belgian parliamentary resolution — not included in the language the committee actually voted on — stated that “war pensions” were paid to those who had served in the SS, that about 30 people in Belgium were collecting them, and that some were war criminals.
Those claims, written more than two years ago, suddenly received intense attention this month, and led to incorrect allegations that the payments were specifically for veterans of the SS, a force closely tied to the Nazi Party that committed a disproportionate share of German war crimes.
The German government says that there are no SS veterans among the recipients in Belgium — the claim’s authors have not cited any evidence — and that there are no known war criminals among those getting the payments.
In reality, under the German legislation that governs the payments, called the Law on the Care of the Victims of the War, SS veterans are less likely than former soldiers in the regular army to qualify. The law prohibits payments to anyone who committed war crimes or crimes against humanity, and it states that where there is evidence of SS membership, claimants must be subjected to a “particularly intensive review” into whether they acted “against the principles of humanity.”
The German government said that such reviews had been carried out in the 1990s and that payments were found to have been directed to some war criminals, 99 of which were then stopped. In total, 2,033 people living outside of Germany are still receiving the payments, the government said.
But Frank Seberechts, a Belgian historian and former research director of a national archive specializing in the Flemish political movement, questioned “the strength and the feasibility of the reviews.”
“The German government did not always have a clear view of who exactly participated in war crimes,” said Mr. Seberechts, author of a book on Belgian collaboration. “In fact, many Belgians who did collaborate militarily did also participate in war crimes, but were never convicted of them.”
He cited a postwar trial in which some Belgians who served as concentration camp guards participated in a massacre of prisoners in what is now Kaliningrad, Russia, on the Baltic Sea. “They were just convicted of military collaboration,” he said, not war crimes or crimes against humanity, because the Belgian judicial apparatus was not equipped to handle such cases immediately after the war.
The payments in question are not subject to taxation in Germany or in Belgium, so Berlin is prohibited from naming the recipients, German officials said.
The introduction to the resolution also claims that the German Embassy in Brussels has the names of recipients in Belgium but has refused to disclose them. But Mr. Kotthaus said that the embassy did not know the names — only that there were 18 of them.
Some of them could be German nationals who moved to Belgium. And if they are Belgian, it is possible that some were forced into German military service, as hundreds of thousands of people from occupied countries were.
The controversy has undertones of the ever-present ethnic tension in Belgium between the French-speaking Walloons and the Flemish, who speak a dialect of Dutch. After the war, Belgium convicted about 80,000 citizens of collaborating with the Germans, and, as is widely known in the country, a majority of them were Flemish. (Collaboration could mean serving in the German administration, doing business with it, or informing on people, in addition to military service.)
The introductory text to the resolution, which contains the unsubstantiated claims, was first introduced in December 2016 by Olivier Maingain, the president of DéFI, a political party that represents the interests of French speakers in and around Brussels.
The parliamentary resolution, which was passed unanimously by the foreign affairs committee on Feb. 19, was co-written by Alvin De Coninck, an amateur historian, and Groupe Mémoires, an organization that promotes the commemoration of the Holocaust.
Mr. De Coninck’s mother was the sole member of her family who was not killed in the Holocaust. After a career as a taxi driver, Mr. De Coninck, 74, earned a bachelor’s degree in history and began independently researching collaboration in Belgium.
In a telephone interview, he said that he was concerned that Belgian war criminals had received or were still receiving payments from Germany, though he conceded that some of his claims required more research.
“It is my right to raise questions about the Holocaust,” he said, “and it is Germany’s duty to provide us with verifiable research and accurate answers.”B:
“【现】【在】【的】【医】【生】【也】【不】【知】【道】【是】【怎】【么】【了】，【怎】【么】【不】【好】【好】【给】【你】【接】【生】，【去】【剖】【腹】【产】【了】。”【何】【明】【君】【抱】【怨】【道】。【她】【是】【过】【来】【人】，【知】【道】【顺】【产】【也】【就】【是】【生】【的】【时】【候】【痛】，【但】【是】【生】【完】【之】【后】【就】【好】【多】【了】，【而】【且】【生】【完】【过】【不】【久】【就】【能】【下】【床】。 【哪】【像】【自】【己】【的】【女】【儿】，【要】【受】【这】【么】【多】【罪】，【生】【完】【之】【后】【躺】【在】【床】【上】【动】【都】【动】【不】【了】。 “【妈】，【双】【胞】【胎】【剖】【腹】【产】【要】【安】【全】【一】【些】。”【吴】【敏】【解】【释】【道】。
【收】【钱】，【埃】【姆】【雷】【帕】【夏】【也】【有】【份】！ 【腐】【朽】【的】【奥】【斯】【曼】【帝】【国】【里】【倒】【卖】【军】【火】【简】【直】【不】【是】【件】【事】，【要】【不】【是】【事】【发】【忽】【然】，【拉】【纳】【克】【斯】【港】【口】【的】【弹】【药】【帐】【目】【将】【被】【摆】【平】，【反】【正】【上】【面】【查】【不】【出】【什】【么】【漏】【子】，【里】【面】【的】【道】【道】【多】【着】【呢】，【比】【方】【说】【来】【几】【次】【演】【习】，【开】【三】【炮】【记】【为】【开】【了】【三】【百】【炮】，【火】【药】【不】【是】【用】【光】【了】【嘛】？！ 【何】【止】【是】【拉】【纳】【克】【斯】【港】【口】，【加】【塔】【角】【军】【港】【的】【弹】【药】【库】【大】【爆】，【许】【多】【人】【松】
【水】【心】【迟】【疑】【了】【一】【下】，【想】【了】【想】【说】【道】：“【如】【果】【不】【惹】【事】【生】【非】，【就】【确】【保】【我】【能】【平】【安】【无】【事】【回】【来】？” “【自】【然】【可】【以】，【我】【保】【证】。”【秋】【容】【十】【分】【肯】【定】【的】【说】【道】。 “【那】【好】，【我】【买】【了】，【就】【是】【不】【知】【价】【值】【几】【何】？”【水】【心】【了】【与】【对】【方】【商】【讨】【起】【来】。 【水】【心】【用】【一】【袋】【灵】【石】，【买】【来】【了】【对】【方】【手】【中】【的】【一】【块】【令】【牌】，【算】【是】【达】【成】【了】【这】【个】【交】【易】。 “【客】【官】【可】【还】【有】【什】【么】【需】【要】【的】？2017064期跑狗图【见】【过】【了】【婆】【婆】【的】【厉】【害】，【从】【此】【我】【更】【加】【的】【不】【敢】【惹】【怒】【了】【她】，【虽】【然】【她】【可】【以】【在】【靳】【严】【靳】【乐】【还】【有】【叔】【叔】【的】【面】【前】【可】【以】【撒】【娇】【可】【以】【可】【爱】，【但】【是】【我】【依】【旧】【忘】【不】【了】【那】【个】【气】【势】【恢】【弘】【的】【阿】【姨】。 【刚】【刚】【的】【话】【语】【堵】【住】【了】【所】【有】【人】【的】【嘴】，【那】【怕】【心】【里】【对】【我】【再】【不】【喜】【欢】【再】【不】【满】【意】【或】【者】【再】【看】【不】【起】【我】，【但】【是】【现】【在】【都】【还】【是】【得】【规】【规】【矩】【矩】【的】【给】【我】【打】【着】【招】【呼】，【偶】【尔】【还】【要】【卖】【一】【两】【句】【乖】。 【我】
【折】【笛】【接】【到】【凌】【潇】【湘】【的】【传】【信】【也】【有】【些】【惊】【讶】，【因】【为】【他】【感】【觉】【帝】【君】【的】【这】【个】【贵】【客】【虽】【然】【看】【着】【很】【好】【相】【处】，【实】【际】【上】【极】【为】【高】【冷】【难】【相】【处】。 【当】【然】，【她】【对】【任】【何】【人】【都】【是】【如】【沐】【春】【风】【般】【的】【温】【柔】，【但】【是】，【没】【有】【人】【能】【真】【正】【靠】【近】【她】【的】【内】【心】。 【折】【笛】【对】【凌】【潇】【湘】【没】【兴】【趣】，【所】【以】【他】【们】【也】【不】【过】【是】【点】【头】【之】【交】【而】【已】。 【现】【在】【凌】【潇】【湘】【却】【煞】【有】【介】【事】【地】【让】【她】【的】【隐】【卫】【都】【来】【传】【信】【了】。
【金】【泽】【轩】【最】【近】【心】【情】【很】【糟】。 【旧】【日】【好】【友】【久】【别】【重】【逢】、【嘘】【寒】【问】【暖】【情】【愫】【暗】【生】。【他】【本】【来】【以】【为】【这】【是】【理】【所】【当】【然】【的】【事】【情】，【却】【没】【想】【到】【这】【世】【上】【还】【有】【如】【此】【不】【知】【好】【歹】【的】【女】【人】，【多】【年】【的】【感】【情】【在】【她】【眼】【里】【难】【道】【还】【比】【不】【上】【一】【个】【陌】【生】【的】【军】【区】【教】【官】？ 【不】【管】【是】【何】【缘】【故】，【这】【都】【是】【金】【泽】【轩】【忍】【无】【可】【忍】【的】【事】【情】。 【而】【除】【了】【被】【抢】【了】【女】【人】，【他】【还】【被】【暴】【打】【了】【一】【顿】，【脸】【都】【开】【花】【的】
“【冀】【宁】~【你】【上】【个】【厕】【所】【怎】【么】【还】【不】【出】【来】？【外】【面】【好】【像】【出】【事】【了】，【一】【堆】【警】【茶】【冲】【了】【进】【来】……” 【边】【说】【话】【边】【进】【来】【的】【人】【正】【是】【之】【前】【拉】【走】【冀】【宁】【的】【那】【位】【红】【毛】【男】，【他】【一】【开】【始】【没】【抬】【眼】，【进】【了】【男】【厕】【望】【见】【冀】【宁】【被】‘【刘】【轩】’【用】【如】【此】【爱】【魅】【的】【距】【离】【怼】【在】【墙】【上】【时】……【他】【不】【淡】【定】【了】…… “【我】、【握】【草】！” “【刘】【轩】【你】【牠】【妈】【是】【畜】【牲】【吗】，【你】【就】【这】【么】【喜】【欢】【男】【人】【啊】！【之】【前】