1 Property Restitution, the Holocaust Industry, and Poland: 75 Books Reviewed Jan Peczkis Understanding the Tactics of the Holocaust Industry [This Page] Two Can Play the Game: Polish Restitution Counterclaims Against Jews [p. 79] Post-Jewish Properties: Owners Have Changed Many Times! [p. 92] Not Poland: Nazi Germany and USSR Each a Nation of Thieves [p. 96] Looting, Grave Robbery Are Common War-Related Behaviors, Not Polish Villainy to Jews [p. 101] An Acute Housing Shortage: Phony Indignation About Jewish Survivors Not Welcomed By Poles [p. 146] Unused Jewish Communal Properties (e. g, Cemeteries) Are Repurposed--But So Are Everyone Else's [p. 162] Understanding the Tactics of the Holocaust Industry ----- Searching for Justice After the Holocaust: Fulfilling the Terezin Declaration and Immovable Property Restitution Bazyler, Michael J. et al. 2019 The Holocaust Industry is After Poland Big Time! Heirless Property “Issues” The authors repeat the canned meme that, whereas 90% of Polish gentiles survived, 90% of Poland’s Jews perished (p. 311, 314, 315, 349), which is now assumed to give Jews special rights, and which disregards the fact that most of the world’s Jews were untouched by the Holocaust. And, in contrast to those who say that the Terezin Declaration is “no big deal”, the authors keep highlighting it, even 2 pointing out that, according to Terezin, “heirless property from victims of the Holocaust should not revert to the state…” (p. 314). DELEGITIMIZING POLAND’S 1946 HEIRLESS PROPERTY SUCCESSION LAW The ownership of heirless properties in post-WWII Poland, far from being some kind of loose end, was actually settled decades ago. Bazyler et al. write, “Currently, Polish law does not provide for the special treatment of heirless property from the Holocaust and World War II. In fact, according to the 8 March 1946 Decree Regarding Post- German and Deserted Properties (Which superceded an 8 May 1945 Law on Abandoned and Derelict Property)(“1946 Decree Regarding Post-German and Deserted Properties”) property not claimed by private owners within the limitation period (usually 10 years) became property of the Polish state.” (p. 352; See also p. 311). The authors add that, “We are not aware of how many properties were returned during the 10-year period set out in the 1946 Decree Regarding Post-German and Deserted Properties or, of the properties returned, what percentage was returned to the Polish Jews.” (p. 326). INVENTING SPECIAL RIGHTS FOR JEWS 75 YEARS AFTER THE FACT The authors realize that the attempt, to create special EX POST FACTO laws for Jews, flies in the face of not only Poland’s 1946 law, but also the heirless-property laws of all the other European nations. The write, “Heirless property restitution remains the future’s challenge. The Study found that the level of compliance has been lowest overall for heirless property restitution. A serious obstacle is that, under the testamentary regimes of most European countries, both Western and Eastern, heirless property reverts to the state. It is axiomatic that ordinary laws apply to ordinary events. But the Holocaust was an extraordinary event. It makes little sense to apply ordinary testamentary laws to situations where so much heirless property suddenly came into existence because of the mass murder of millions of people. Principles of equity and justice grounded in ancient Roman law underscore that applying ordinary heirless property legislation to the situation of Holocaust restitution creates an injustice. Roman law principles of unjust enrichment should apply not only to individuals but also to the state, meaning that a wrongdoer should not profit from his wrongs. The Terezin Declaration recognized this principle and the extraordinary situation by declaring that heirless property should be allocated for the benefit of needy Holocaust survivors, commemoration of destroyed Jewish communities, and Holocaust education.” (pp. 484-485). 3 The authors conveniently forget that it was because of German acts, and not Polish acts, that there was so much Jewish heirless and unused communal property! So who, if anybody, is engaged in “unjust enrichment”? In addition to all this, Bazyler et al, following post-Stalinist Jan T. Gross, now try to delegitimize the 1946 law by repeating the insinuation that Holocaust surviving Jews were afraid to reclaim their property after the war, as if this was the norm! (p. 311, 325). DELEGITIMIZING POLAND’S 1960 CLAIMS SETTLEMENT WITH THE U. S. The authors equivocate as they attempt to belittle the 1960 U.S.-Poland Bilateral Agreement, “Thus, many of the Polish survivors of the Holocaust and World War II who later became U. S. citizens would have been excluded, if at the time of the taking of the property they were not U. S. citizens. However, everything depended on the circumstances of each expropriation and the interpretation made by the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission (“FCSC”) which determined the claims.” (p. 320). ----- German Reparations and the Jewish World: A History of the Claims Conference Zweig, Ronald W. 2014 Holocaust Industry: Lacks Transparency. Post-WWII Polish-Jews-Feared-Poles Myth. Poland Targeted. "Needy Holocaust Survivors" a "Bait" For Emotional Appeal and Manipulation Author Ronald W. Zweig is a researcher, on the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany. He is at Tel Aviv University. This work is mainly on the Claims Conference component of the 1952 Luxembourg Agreement. WIDESPREAD (NOT ONLY POLAND!) POST-WWII FEAR- DRIVEN CRYPTO-JEWS The unwillingness of many Jewish Holocaust survivors, in Poland, to disclose their Jewishness after the war, is customarily blamed on (what else?) Polish anti-Semitism. Zweig inadvertently debunks this as he writes, "The Claims Conference had difficulties in ascertaining with accuracy the size of European Jewish communities. As late as ten years after the war many Jews refused to cooperate in a Conference-sponsored survey of the Jewish population of Europe because they remembered the uses made of such lists by the Nazis during the war." (p. 61). VALIDITY OF POLISH OBJECTIONS TO THE CLAIMS OF THE HOLOCAUST INDUSTRY Zweig writes, "The fate of Jewish communal property in countries (like Poland) occupied by the Nazis, and where 4 the loss and destruction caused by war were not confined to the Jewish community alone, is particularly problematic. Can the Polish state be asked to compensate for heirless properties that accrued to it as the result of policies for which it was not responsible? Can the vastly depleted surviving Jewish community in Poland (some 6,000 today) be considered the legitimate heirs of a community of 3,300,000 before the war? What rights do Polish Jewish refugees now living elsewhere have on communal property in Poland? By what right do non-Polish Jewish organizations, confident and experienced in their dealings, intervene in the internal Polish relations between the government and the weak local Jewish community?" (p. 6). WHY SO MANY HEIRLESS JEWISH PROPERTIES? GERMAN CRIMES! Zweig sagely comments, "There were no precedents for many of the legal and political issues created by the war. The concept of heirless personal and communal assets is not new to the law. Normally, heirless property reverts to the state, for the benefit of the entire community. However, GERMANY WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DISAPPEARANCE OF THE LEGAL OWNERS and therefore could not be allowed to benefit from the property that was left behind." (p. 2; Emphasis added).The law plainly states that heirless property escheats to the state, and there are no valid Jewish tribal rights that trump it. Therefore, any financial restitution for them must come from Germany, not Poland. In other words, the making the remnant of Poland's Jews heirless, on the conquering Germans' part, does not impose a liability on the Poles' part. What could be clearer? NORMAN FINKELSTEIN IS CORRECT: ADMITTED SECRETIVENESS OF THE HOLOCAUST INDUSTRY Zweig brings-up Norman Finkelstein's classic, THE HOLOCAUST INDUSTRY. He at first tries to dismiss it as an expression of jealousy by those who were not compensated enough, by those who resent having to pay for past injustices, and by those who dislike being confronted with "inconvenient memories of the past". (p. 10). He then does a bit of an about-face, as he freely admits that, "The critics' task was made easier by the regrettable policy of the Jewish organizations to close their records to research, resulting in an almost total absence of serious scholarship on the subject of restitution, reparations and the rehabilitations of the Jewish world." (p. 10). Zweig then claims that the records have now been open, but provides no references, and no details on what information was disclosed, and what remains secret. BYPASSING SOVEREIGN STATES: HOLOCAUST INDUSTRY IS 5 EMPOWERED BY GLOBALISM One does not have to believe in conspiracy theories, or in Jews being the "invisible hand" that rules over nations, to appreciate the ability of the non-government entities of the Holocaust Industry to put effective pressure on governments to pay them off. This is obvious in the following statements by Zweig, "As already noted, the globalization of the world economy ensures that all significant bodies--banks, companies and states--are vulnerable to American non-governmental pressures. Even though the State Department and the Clinton administration have adopted the Holocaust-era assets question, the initiative for action on the restoration of assets has become the prerogative of private lawyers and voluntary organizations." (p. 7). This is a portent. As time goes on, the Holocaust Industry is less likely to depend on popular support, the passage of favorable laws, etc., and instead likely to rely more and more on largely-covert pressures directed at governments by private individuals and organizations. The potential for corruption, by those who demand payment as well as those who are forced to pay, is easy to see.