Press Poland To Pass Property-Restitution Law

By Marilyn Henry

Published November 25, 2005, issue of November 25, 2005.
  • Print
  • Share Share

In 1956, a year after Auschwitz survivor Michael Taffet became an American citizen, the government of Poland nationalized his family’s property in Debica. The seizure was based on a decree issued in 1946 that permitted the government to take property still considered “abandoned” 10 years after the end of World War II.

Polish Jews like Taffet clearly had not abandoned their houses, farms and businesses voluntarily. They had been routed from their homes, or had fled to escape the Nazis. And those who survived the Holocaust often found themselves stateless, alone and menaced when they tried to return home.

The decree, however, did not allow for such distinctions. And despite the passing of a half-century and the collapse of communism, the Polish government has done nothing to rectify the injustice.

Today, Poland still lacks a law on the restitution of private property that was confiscated or nationalized by previous regimes. More than a dozen attempts since the collapse of communism to pass such legislation all have failed, stymied by popular resistance to “reprivatization” measures on both economic and social grounds.

The absence of such a law has made the only recourse for private property claims the Polish courts — where, to judge by the available anecdotal evidence, American citizens such as Taffet have been at a severe disadvantage. Although American policy has long been that Nazi victims are entitled to recover confiscated properties, claimants are haunted by the terms of a 1960 treaty that the United States signed with Poland to resolve property claims.

Such treaties are not unusual. After wars, countries often negotiate bilateral agreements under which one government seeks payments to cover war claims on behalf of its corporations and citizens. Under the 1960 American-Polish agreement, Warsaw agreed to pay $40 million over 20 years to cover Americans’ commercial and personal claims for nationalized properties in Poland.

Given the losses, $40 million didn’t go very far. Two years after the treaty, the American government had received 10,169 claims. It certified awards for 5,022 of the claims, with an assessed value of $151.8 million.

Taffet was among those who submitted a claim to the United States Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, the quasi-judicial agency that assesses the legitimacy and value of Americans’ claims against foreign governments. Taffet’s father, Efroim, had owned numerous properties in Debica, about 65 miles east of Krakow.

The Taffet heirs sought $40,000 for the properties, which included two brick and three wooden houses. The commission determined that, at the time of the taking, the Taffet properties were worth $19,500. But there was not enough in the Polish pot to satisfy all the claims. In the end, successful claimants received an average of one-third of the commission’s assessed value of their claim.

It may have been a raw deal for claimants, but it was the only deal available. The Cold War was at its height, and no one could have predicted the communists’ downfall. Nor, for that matter, could anyone have expected that the American government would make a concerted effort decades later to push European nations to restitute properties that had been confiscated during the Nazi era or nationalized under communist regimes.

Yet despite these historical developments, Poland continues to treat as settled the cases of those who received compensation under the 1960 treaty. That was the case for Michael Taffet, who died last year. The small award he got from the United States Foreign Claims Settlement Commission nearly a half-century ago defeated his restitution claim at century’s end in the Polish courts.

Sadly, Taffet is not alone. Survivors and their heirs are still being defeated in Polish courts by claims made decades earlier, claims that were victims’ only option at the time. And as if that weren’t enough, some claimants have been accused of “double-dipping,” or attempting to collect compensation twice for the same property. It is long past time that the Polish government passed a property-restitution law.

To be fair, any such law should include a provision that stipulates that victims must be prepared to return any prior compensation received in order to recover properties. Indeed, there is precedent elsewhere in Europe for such a provision.

During the Cold War, West Germany paid compensation to those who had lost properties in what became East Germany. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, the German government passed measures to enable people to claim properties in the former communist region. Those measures, too, were extremely unpopular in the east, where residents feared they would be driven from their homes. Nonetheless, restitution proceeded. Those who successfully recovered properties in the former East Germany were obliged to return any prior compensation.

The State Department, in prodding Warsaw for a property-restitution law, should insist that Poland’s measure be at least as liberal as the German law. Anything less would discriminate against Americans who, like Michael Taffet, had placed their confidence in the United States to protect their interests.

Marilyn Henry is the author of a forthcoming book on the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany, to be published by Vallentine Mitchell.






Find us on Facebook!
  • This is what the rockets over Israel and Gaza look like from space:
  • "Israel should not let captives languish or corpses rot. It should do everything in its power to recover people and bodies. Jewish law places a premium on pidyon shvuyim, “the redemption of captives,” and proper burial. But not when the price will lead to more death and more kidnappings." Do you agree?
  • Slate.com's Allison Benedikt wrote that Taglit-Birthright Israel is partly to blame for the death of American IDF volunteer Max Steinberg. This is why she's wrong:
  • Israeli soldiers want you to buy them socks. And snacks. And backpacks. And underwear. And pizza. So claim dozens of fundraising campaigns launched by American Jewish and Israeli charities since the start of the current wave of crisis and conflict in Israel and Gaza.
  • The sign reads: “Dogs are allowed in this establishment but Zionists are not under any circumstances.”
  • Is Twitter Israel's new worst enemy?
  • More than 50 former Israeli soldiers have refused to serve in the current ground operation in #Gaza.
  • "My wife and I are both half-Jewish. Both of us very much felt and feel American first and Jewish second. We are currently debating whether we should send our daughter to a Jewish pre-K and kindergarten program or to a public one. Pros? Give her a Jewish community and identity that she could build on throughout her life. Cons? Costs a lot of money; She will enter school with the idea that being Jewish makes her different somehow instead of something that you do after or in addition to regular school. Maybe a Shabbat sing-along would be enough?"
  • Undeterred by the conflict, 24 Jews participated in the first ever Jewish National Fund— JDate singles trip to Israel. Translation: Jews age 30 to 45 travelled to Israel to get it on in the sun, with a side of hummus.
  • "It pains and shocks me to say this, but here goes: My father was right all along. He always told me, as I spouted liberal talking points at the Shabbos table and challenged his hawkish views on Israel and the Palestinians to his unending chagrin, that I would one day change my tune." Have you had a similar experience?
  • "'What’s this, mommy?' she asked, while pulling at the purple sleeve to unwrap this mysterious little gift mom keeps hidden in the inside pocket of her bag. Oh boy, how do I answer?"
  • "I fear that we are witnessing the end of politics in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I see no possibility for resolution right now. I look into the future and see only a void." What do you think?
  • Not a gazillionaire? Take the "poor door."
  • "We will do what we must to protect our people. We have that right. We are not less deserving of life and quiet than anyone else. No more apologies."
  • "Woody Allen should have quit while he was ahead." Ezra Glinter's review of "Magic in the Moonlight": http://jd.fo/f4Q1Q
  • from-cache

Would you like to receive updates about new stories?




















We will not share your e-mail address or other personal information.

Already subscribed? Manage your subscription.