
Last German kaiser's heirs fight for riches lost behind Iron Curtain - howrude
https://news.yahoo.com/last-german-kaisers-heirs-fight-riches-lost-behind-030103559.html
======
zokier
Post-communist reparations is one big mess in central Europe. I think the case
of Lichtenstein is one of the most stark:

> Through the prince of Liechtenstein and his family, this country on the
> Alpine Rhine was still closely linked to the distant Czech lands in the
> first half of the 20th century, and after 1918 the prince and other family
> members had an influential role in Czechoslovakia as late-Medieval
> propertied aristocrats. There were two phases which led to the complete loss
> of this property – firstly, they lost more than half from 1920 to 1938 as a
> result of Czechoslovak land reform (with financial compensation), and they
> lost the rest after 1945 through confiscation. The fate of the Czech lands,
> Czechoslovakia and its population in the first half of the 20th century had
> repercussions for the Principality of Liechtenstein and the Liechtenstein
> princely family. The prince was both the head of state and the head of the
> family. He gradually lost 90% of his assets as a result of land reform and
> confiscation in Czechoslovakia. From the 1920s to the 1960s the prince and
> his family were plagued by financial difficulties.

It is easy to brush these away as long past history, but for example these
properties were confiscated from the hands of the current princes father. That
I'd think as pretty close connection still.

~~~
Gibbon1
> It is easy to brush these away as long past history, but for example these
> properties were confiscated from the hands of the current princes father.
> That I'd think as pretty close connection still.

I'm having a problem coming up with a reason why we should care about the
prince of Liechtenstein compared any other random person. Seriously during the
period when they lost their lands whole families were totally wiped out.
Especially considering they were neutral during WWII.

~~~
afiori
> Especially considering they were neutral during WWII.

Neutrality is strongly in favor of Liechtenstein case here. Similarly to how
when the neutral San Marino got bombed in WWII Italy was held liable for
reparations.

~~~
Gibbon1
Everyone had to sacrifice something, my uncle sacrificed 4 years of his life.
Maybe losing his inherited lands is the prince of Liechtenstein's sacrifice.

~~~
afiori
I would say that this kind of sacrifice should not be expected or demanded
across national borders.

Had the prince forfeited or sold the land for the safety of the nation then he
would agree with you.

but as far as I know this is more like your uncle getting kidnapped for 4
years (human life and land are incomparable, so this makes little sense) by a
different country to fight their war.

Note that this sort of already happen when regions that want to/should be
independent get exploited in war times.

------
Litmus2336
I'm not exactly super sympathetic to monarchs though. I don't think it's
unreasonable that, after the fall of the monarchy, they lose most of their
assets.

~~~
zokier
The monarchy aspect is a red herring here. The properties in question were
granted to the family long after the abdication. The soviet confiscation had
little to do with the fall of monarcy in this case

~~~
Litmus2336
You're totally correct that the properties in the article were granted after
abdication, but I'm not in favor of the large amount of property returned to
them after WW1.

And in regards to Soviet confiscation in Czechoslovakia, I would argue that
the Communist revolution in Europe is related to the fall of the Monarchy, and
when Communists come to power it makes sense that they would seize the land of
nobles (even those from other countries).

------
colechristensen
The same claims are made around the world by people who no resources or
prestige, sometimes they win things, sometimes they don't.

Examples include Palestinians, descendants of slaves in the US, Native
Americans, indigenous peoples around the world.

Just about everybody has a history of their ancestors taking things in ways
which weren't "legal" AND having things taken from them. It is hard to come up
with a consistent moral and legal philosophy to deal with these kinds of
things. Do I owe reparations to the British isles and Normandy because most of
my ancestors were Vikings (or to myself because many of my ancestors would
also have been victims)? Should I give the family farm back to the Native
Americans who were kicked off the land? Does Rome still deserve much of
Europe?

It's super difficult to determine these things, especially when the people who
have had things taken from them are dead and maybe several generations back.

~~~
henrikschroder
> It is hard to come up with a consistent moral and legal philosophy to deal
> with these kinds of things.

It is _impossible_ , because you quickly run into contrafactual history.

Let's say the descendants of Scandinavian vikings owe repairs to descendants
of people living in Normandy, because the vikings raped and pillaged.

Except, they also settled. And became Normans. And invaded England. Changed
the English language forever, changed the ruling class of England. Changed the
history of Europe forever. Maybe the Norman conquest was ultimately a good
thing for England? Maybe the Anglo-Saxons would have been wiped out by some
other conqueror if the Normans hadn't come?

There are millions of people who live today because history happened the way
it happened. If the vikings hadn't raped and pillaged and settled in Normandy,
those millions of people would never have been born. So do they owe money to
the descendants of the vikings as thanks for their existence?

~~~
colechristensen
Exactly.

It was, let's say 1000 years ago and most people affected descended from both
perpetrators and victims. You could go as far as saying this kind of violence
was important and _necessary_ for the development of civilization; if every
human respected property rights for the last 10,000 years we would live in a
very different world.

So a 1,000 year old crime is wiped out in the present. When does that stop?
How soon to now should the statute of limitations be?

300 year old Native American issues? 150 year old American slavery issues? 100
year old Israel/Palestine issues? 50 year old American discrimination issues?

If I go out and steal something today, obviously there is a legal remedy. How
far back does it go? Does it flow through generations?

It seems impossible but there has to be a line or some distinction between
historic issues which are necessarily "done" and present issues which deserve
justice.

People are deciding these issues but I haven't heard or seen a justification
for one way vs the other.

~~~
hydrox24
Look into the argument between Robert Nozick and Jeremy Waldron over
historical justice.

Waldron tries to solve the problem that you and your parent comment are laying
out by changing the basis of property rights from the Lockean idea (we mix our
labour with something to make it our property) to a new idea, that property is
based on the organisation of a person's life around a particular object.
Intuitively, this gives credence to the idea that the nice fountain pen I
found on the ground four years ago is now nearly totally mine, and that the
person who lost it has much less claim over it, particularly if they only
bought it a few months before losing it.

It also makes sense of our intuition that I ought to give it back if it has
been in their family for three generations. Four years of my life organised
around the thing does not stand up to his deeper attachment and ownership of
the object.

Obviously, there are traps inherent to the subjectivity of these judgements
here, but it does provide a nice philosophical answer to the historical
issues.

Sites that continue to be sacred probably ought to be handed back because they
continue to play a central role in the lives of indiginous people. But the CBD
of Sydney, for instance, has a far stronger claim by those who own the land
and have built several hundred thousand lives around the property. Generic
indiginous claims to the land there don't hold water any more.

------
pergadad
The British royal family is one of the largest landowners in Europe and,
accordingly, receives one of the largest chunks of EU agricultural funding.

I guess the same is true across countries: former royal/noble families hold
onto the land of past glory. But should we really accept this? Is a king's
claim not simply the land of the state once the country transitions to
democracy?

~~~
dragonwriter
> Is a king's claim not simply the land of the state once the country
> transitions to democracy?

That depends on how the state and personal domains of the monarch are
disentangled when the monarchy is disestablished (in the case of the UK the
moanrchy hasn't been disestablished, merely almost entirely politically
neutralized.)

The former monarch could be left with anything between vast private domains
and nothing. But there is no one uniquely correct answer.

------
ap3
>A century after Germany's monarchy was abolished, some of its blue-blooded
descendants are riding back into battle to reclaim what they see as their
royal birthright.

How come everybody want to keep it like the kaiser?

(sorry)

What’s missing here and other land claims around the world is that the Kaiser
didn’t sue anyone or plead in international court for the right to have those
properties.

The monarchs kept those lands through the strength of their armies, and I
don’t think that world of might can just transition over to the new world of
law

~~~
zokier
> The monarchs kept those lands through the strength of their armies

Not really. The lands in question were granted to them after abdication, when
they had very little might anymore. So the question of transition to new world
of law was pretty much already resolved in 1925

------
hn23
Interestingly they claim it right after lots of their former property was
reconstructed...

------
TomMckenny
So Australia, Canada, and the US are going to be returned to their previous
owners?

There is zero consistency in these kinds of claims because what is really
happening is an influential family with plenty of resources for lawyers is
going to grab a shipload of German taxpayer euros using tortured legal
arguments.

~~~
Lazare
> So Australia, Canada, and the US are going to be returned to their previous
> owners?

If you read the article, this boils down to a dispute very specifically about
compensation for property seized by the Soviet Union, well _after_ the
Hohenzollern's became private citizens.

Given that Australia, Canada, and the US were at no point seized from private
citizens by the Soviet Union, the answer to your question would appear to be
"no".

> There is zero consistency in these kinds of claims

If you read the article and determine what type of claims are being discussed,
you'll see there's a LOT of consistency.

------
bogomipz
Could a German speaker please provide a phonetic spelling of the proper way to
pronounce "Hohenzollerns"? Thanks.

~~~
stordoff
Wikipedia lists hoːənˈtsɔlɐn if you can read IPA, though without citation,
which may provide a starting point.

~~~
bakuninsbart
This is the correct pronounciation! I think the only part that varies between
pronouncioations is the last vocal, which can be pronounced as an a, e or
somewhere in between.

------
basicplus2
The real question is how did the keiser's family aquire the wealth in the
first place.

------
gwbas1c
> Under a 1994 law, people whose property was expropriated by the Soviet Union
> have a right to claim compensation -- but only if they did not "lend
> considerable support" to the Nazi regime.

> In a newspaper in 1932, the crown prince called for people to vote for Adolf
> Hitler in the presidential election, he added.

Seems rather straightforward to me.

~~~
ummonk
That doesn't seem quite so straightforward actually. The Nazi regime wasn't a
thing yet, as the Nazis had yet to seize power. How obvious was it at the time
to Germans that the Nazis would turn out to be so horrible?

~~~
usrusr
Early support only makes it worse. Later support might reasonably be explained
away as pragmatism (think von Braun at Mittelbau, who, according to the
accepted American interpretation, just cared a bit too little about how
exactly he would to get ahead with his goal of shooting stuff to space), but
early support is pure embracing of ideology and ruthlessness (see sibling
comments).

~~~
selimthegrim
I wonder how Oberth's record compares?

------
onetimemanytime
>> _Many critics have expressed anger that the Hohenzollerns are now trying to
get these treasures back, depleting public collections._

well, it's theirs after all.

~~~
Pulcinella
It is not theirs and never was. There is no such thing as a “legitimate king.”

~~~
ummonk
And I'd argue that historically, the nobility were stewards of the state.
Since they no longer fulfill that function, the property should remain with
the state.

------
DoctorOetker
Given that:

1) Hitler was in the kaiser's military,

2) sent to spy / infiltrate a left-wing worker's party (DAP, "German Worker's
Party"),

3) out of world-wide fear of communism (justified or not), turned it into the
NSDAP ("National Socialist German Worker's Party")

4) including Jews as scapegoats (incidentally copying the failed tactic of the
russian tsarist secret police, who fabricated the scrolls of zion thing, also
to prevent communism)

5) with the well known clusterfuck that was WWII and the holocaust as a result

again, all due to 1) the kaiser's military sending Hitler on this path

then I don't know if there is much to inherit from the kaiser: if you or my
parents have both property and debt, you either inherit both or neither, none
of us get to cherry pick, why should the heirs of the kaiser get special
treatment?

