8 ms·
Last German kaiser's heirs fight for riches lost behind Iron Curtain
- onetimemanytime 7y ago>>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.
- frostburg 7y agoBy the same logic it was taken from them by right of conquest, as their ancestors did to others.
- onetimemanytime 7y agoAt some point the state recognizes property, even if it was seized or granted, say, 450 years ago. After that you cannot take it without compensation.
- pkaye 7y agoWhat about the British crown jewels which originated form India?
- selimthegrim 7y agoIIRC Pakistan had claimed them too
- est31 7y agoIt's one of the basic principles of most ownership law that after a certain time if you don't complain about people violating your rights as an owner for long enough, you lose them. This is the case for trademarks for example, or for real estate in many places (New York is an example). These concepts of usucaption/adverse possession go back to roman ages.
- Pulcinella 7y agoIt is not theirs and never was. There is no such thing as a “legitimate king.”
- ummonk 7y agoAnd 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.
- PhasmaFelis 7y agoNot that I have much sympathy for those folks, but what does their (il)legitimacy as nobility have to do with their right to own property and possessions? There are solid arguments against their claims, but this isn't one of them.
- zokier 7y agoAccording to the article the property in question was legitimized as private property by German state after abdication. So after 1926 the formerly royal family were just rich normal citizens, and the legitimacy of their former royalty should not matter.
- hn23 7y agoIf it was, they should have cared about it earlier. Right after the borders opened...Now, after lots of stuff was reconstructed and supported with tax money, they come back....
- gwbas1c 7y ago> 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 7y agoThat 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?
- InTheArena 7y agoVery. The nazis did exactly what they said they would do prior to this election - they rearmed Germany, killed the communists and marginalized all other parties, acquired “living room” in the east, expelled Jews from berlin (and then murdered them en mass) in a way that was completely consistent with what Nazi press organs such as the stormer and mein kampf told Germans they would. People make a mistake comparing the nazis with present day political parties or characters like Trump. They were not - they were extraordinarily violent and racist by the standards of the day, to say nothing about modern day. They did little to hide it.
- DiogenesKynikos 7y agoThey were a rabidly anti-Semitic party whose central principles were racial purity and complete submission to a single cult-like leader, a guy who wrote a book calling for Germany to conquer "living space" for ethnic Germans in Eastern Europe. This party had a paramilitary organization that beat up its political opponents in the streets. It wasn't difficult to see that the Nazis were horrible.
- vkou 7y agoIt would have been obvious to anyone who actually read Mein Kampf.
- TomMckenny 7y agoSo 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.
- sandworm101 7y agoWell, in the US lots of people are behind Americans getting compensation for things lost when Cuba when communist, property lost when the government nationalized ports and factories. I don't see how that is any different than German's claiming for material lost to a different communist tide. The real issue is whether one believed that property rights can really be destroyed. What does it mean to "own" something? Is it ownership in the eyes of a particular government? What if that government falls? Is it a super-governmental right? Is the Church an authority (ie church records)? Imho it boils down to who is in power and what they decide to do, whether they choose to respect your claim or not. All the legal arguments are secondary. Anyone who thinks they "own" part of the moon knows this problem. Your ownership only matters to a country that wants to respect your moon rights, ie none of them.
- onetimeusename 7y agoI am not sure what Australia, Canada, and the US have to do with it. In the last century, Soviets confiscated land and since then there are laws that allow property to be reclaimed. Land claims in Australia, Canada, or the US, if they exist, are in a separate legal jurisdiction. There are similar claims processes in place for property confiscated by Nazis. Is that also inconsistent? Taxpayer money was spent on maintaining these properties which is unfortunate but I suppose that that should not prevent rightful heirs from being able to claim property.
- Lazare 7y ago> 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.
- hn23 7y agoInterestingly they claim it right after lots of their former property was reconstructed...
- colechristensen 7y agoThe 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.
- michaelvoz 7y agoMade even more difficult by the fact that the current generation did not "do the deed" so to speak. In your example of Palestinians or Native Americans - the "occupiers" were born here, this is their home now, the original conquering generation is very much gone, what solution can there be?
- markdown 7y ago> In your example of Palestinians... the "occupiers" were born here, this is their home now, the original conquering generation is very much gone Nothing could be further from the truth. https://www.amnestyusa.org/lets-be-clear-israels-long-running-settlement-policy-constitutes-a-war-crime/ https://www.amnestyusa.org/lets-be-clear-israels-long-runnin...
- colechristensen 7y agoMuch of that conflict is about things that were done generations ago. True, recent and current actions also fit the bill, but it is disingenuous to claim that the settlement activity is the primary mover of the situation. One thing that link throws around is the word "illegal". There are customs and treaties, but there is not a world government to enforce the rule of law for these treaties. Many of the definitions like "occupied territory" are up for debate as well. It just doesn't come down to a clear set of rules and an authority to enforce them.
- zokier 7y agoPost-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.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- Gibbon1 7y ago> 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.
- zokier 7y ago> I'm having a problem coming up with a reason why we should care about the prince of Liechtenstein compared any other random person I see the situation in quite the opposite way; these high profile cases spearheading the effort to get the soviet/communist abuses acknowledged and establishing the principle of restitution that'll then help all those subjected to confiscations etc
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- Litmus2336 7y agoI'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.
- PostOnce 7y agoWin wars and wealth, lose wars and wealth.
- zokier 7y agoThe 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 7y agoYou'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).
- basicplus2 7y agoThe real question is how did the keiser's family aquire the wealth in the first place.
- ap3 7y ago>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 7y ago> 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
- pergadad 7y agoThe 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 7y ago> 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.
- bogomipz 7y agoCould a German speaker please provide a phonetic spelling of the proper way to pronounce "Hohenzollerns"? Thanks.
- stordoff 7y agoWikipedia lists hoːənˈtsɔlɐn if you can read IPA, though without citation, which may provide a starting point.
- bakuninsbart 7y agoThis 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.
- DoctorOetker 7y agoGiven 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?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]