Topics: Holocaust, Holocaust Commemoration, Holocaust Education, Holocaust Memorials, Holocaust Survivors, Holocaust Survivors: Children of, Jewish Community, Main Topic: Holocaust and Memorial, Post-Colonial, Post-War Reconstruction, Restitution and Reparations, Memory
Abstract: Książka jest wynikiem interdyscyplinarnych badań dwudziestu ośmiu autorów pracujących przez trzy lata systemem seminaryjnym pod kierownictwem Feliksa Tycha, autora projektu, oraz Moniki Adamczyk-Garbowskiej. Przedstawia próbę kompleksowego zbadania wpływu Holokaustu i okupacji niemieckiej na kondycję nielicznych - w porównaniu z przedwojenną liczbą - ocalałych Żydów polskich. Autorzy wprowadzają czytelnika w świat życia żydowskiego i stosunków polsko-żydowskich w powojennej Polsce od roku 1944 po pierwszą dekadę XXI wieku. Teksty zostały ułożone w czterech blokach tematycznych, które w znacznej mierze odpowiadają istotnym etapom życia żydowskiego w Polsce i jego postrzegania przez większość społeczeństwa, czyli kolejno latom szacowania strat, nadziei i odbudowy, okresowi tabuizacji, zacierania pamięci, wreszcie - sytuacji obecnej. Adresowana zarówno do specjalistów, jak i szerszego kręgu odbiorców książka ta może służyć jako źródło wiedzy, swoisty przewodnik, a także inspiracja do dalszych badań nad następstwami Zagłady w Polsce i w innych krajach. Jest to pierwsza zakrojona na tak szeroką skalę publikacja, która na przykładzie Polski - przed wojną największego skupiska Żydów w Europie i drugiego, po USA, na świecie - ukazuje wpływ Holokaustu na powojenną kondycję Żydów oraz całego społeczeństwa polskiego.
Feliks Tych, Monika Adamczyk-Garbowska Przedmowa 7
KRAJOBRAZ PO WOJNIE 13
Albert Stankowski, Piotr Weiser Demograficzne skutki Holokaustu 15
Alina Skibińska Powroty ocalałych i stosunek do nich społeczeństwa polskiego 39
Andrzej Żbikowski Morderstwa popełniane na Żydach w pierwszych latach po wojnie 71
Tamar Lewinsky Żydowscy uchodźcy i przesiedleńcy z Polski w okupowanych Niemczech 95
Ewa Koźmińska -Frejlak Kondycja ocalałych. Adaptacja do rzeczywistości powojennej (1944–1949) 123
August Grabski Żydzi a polskie życie polityczne (1944–1949) 157
PRÓBY ODBUDOWY ŻYCIA ŻYDOWSKIEGO 189
Grzegorz Berendt Życie od nowa. Instytucje i organizacje żydowskie (1944–1950) 191
August Grabski, Albert Stankowski Życie religijne społeczności żydowskiej 215
Helena Datner Dziecko żydowskie (1944–1968) 245
Joanna Nalewajko-Kuliko V, Magdalena Ruta Kultura jidysz po II wojnie światowej 283
Monika Adamczyk-Garbowska, Magdalena Ruta Literatura polska i jidysz wobec Zagłady 305
Renata Piątkowska Żydowskie życie artystyczne po Zagładzie 339
Grzegorz Berendt Wpływ liberalizacji politycznej roku 1956 na sytuację Żydów 359
Feliks Tych „Marzec’68”. Geneza, przebieg i skutki kampanii antysemickiej lat 1967/68 385
Edyta Gawron Powojenna emigracja Żydów z Polski. Przykład Krakowa 413
PAMIĘĆ I ZAPOMNIENIE 439
Monika Adamczyk-Garbowska, Adam Kopciowski Zamiast macewy. Żydowskie księgi pamięci 441
Eleonora Bergman , Jan Jagi elski Ślady obecności. Synagogi i cmentarze 471
Robert Kuwałek Obozy koncentracyjne i ośrodki zagłady jako miejsca pamięci 493
Sławomir Kapralski Od milczenia do „trudnej pamięci”. Państwowe Muzeum Auschwitz-Birkenau i jego rola w dyskursie publicznym 527
Bożena Szaynok Kościół katolicki w Polsce wobec problematyki żydowskiej (1944–1989) 553
Małgorzata Melchior Zagłada w świadomości polskich Żydów 583
Hanna Węgrzynek Tematyka Zagłady w podręcznikach szkolnych (1945–2009) 597
Jolanta Ambrosewicz-Jacobs Świadomość Holokaustu wśród młodzieży polskiej po zmianach systemowych 1989 roku 625
TU I TERAZ 659
Helena Datner Współczesna społeczność żydowska w Polsce a Zagłada 661
Monika Krawczyk Status prawny własności żydowskiej i jego wpływ na stosunki polsko-żydowskie 687
Monika Adamczyk-Garbowska, Magdalena Ruta Od kultury żydowskiej do kultury o Żydach 715
Dariusz Libionka Debata wokół Jedwabnego 733
Joanna Tokarska-Bakir Następstwa Holokaustu w relacjach żydowskich i w pamięci polskiej prowincji w świetle badań etnograficznych 775
Ewa Koźmińska-Frejlak Wdzięczność i zapomnienie. Polacy i Żydzi wobec Sprawiedliwych (1944–2007) 813
Antoni Sułek Zwykli Polacy patrzą na Żydów. Postawy społeczeństwa polskiego wobec Żydów w świetle badań sondażowych (1967–2008) 853
Informacje o autorach 889
Wykaz skrótów 895
Indeks 897
Abstract: Rozsáhlá monografie odborníků z pražské právnické fakulty pod vedením Jana Kuklíka a Reného Petráše se věnuje problému majetkových ztrát židovského obyvatelstva za druhé světové války a různým metodám odškodnění. Publikace má široký historický a komparativní záběr, obsahuje podrobnou analýzu právních aspektů a zabývá se i dodnes nedořešenými otázkami. Nejpodrobněji je v knize zastoupeno území bývalého Československa, ale pozornost je věnována i vývoji v dalších státech: Německu, Rakousku, Polsku, ale také v zemích s velmi odlišnou situací, jako jsou Velká Británie, Bulharsko či Švýcarsko. Výklad u jednotlivých států obvykle zahrnuje nástin vývoje postavení Židů v daném regionu v posledních desetiletích před holocaustem, jsou však naznačeny i starší, středověké tradice. Jádrem práce je zachycení často až pozoruhodně různorodých metod záborů židovského majetku zejména v době druhé světové války a jeho restitucí nebo různých odškodňovacích akcí, které probíhají až do současnosti.
Abstract: Restitution for the mostly Jewish property and assets that were confiscated by the Nazis during World War II (WWII) in various European states has been a highly debated issue ever since the end of the war. Countries that adhered to the ideas of communism and nationalisation of property in the immediate aftermath of the war failed to address this issue until very recently. Serbia, too, has only began to consider remedying the incredible damage done to its rather small Jewish community. More specifically, in the past decade, Serbia has been trying to repair the damage by passing a series of restitution laws which eventually led to separate legislation on heirless property. This paper explores the substance and application of these laws, as well as the history of discrimination based on which the Serbian Jewish community was persecuted by German occupiers and their collaborators. In doing so, through the lens of Critical Race Theory (CRT), this paper identifies another group that has been persecuted on the basis of race, namely the Romani. What follows from such research is the following: firstly, the law allowed for discrimination on a racial basis of both Jews and Roma during WWII and, secondly, the law is now remedying the damages caused towards the former group, but not the latter. In conclusion, this paper suggests that such a distinction is made due to a possible interest convergence, as defined by CRT.
Abstract: In march 1998, the Vatican released a long-awaited statement on the Catholic Church and the Holocaust. In a preface to the document, entitled We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah, Pope John Paul II expressed his hope that it would ‘help to heal the wounds of past misunderstandings and injustices’. Eighteen months after the publication of the document, it seems now possible to conclude that, however sincere the Vatican’s intentions, the pope’s hopes will almost certainly not be realized. Indeed, far from healing, the document has succeeded largely in re-opening, if not actually deepening, old wounds. Not only did it divide the Catholic intellectual and journalistic communities. More importantly, I think, it bewildered and frustrated many Jewish readers and bitterly disappointed others. It also called forth a literary response from Jewish intellectuals and organizations that, while especially vigorous in the immediate wake of the document’s publication, had force and feeling to last more than a year. Since the energy driving these responses appears to have subsided, it seems possible now to undertake a comprehensive survey of Jewish reaction to We Remember and to attempt to account for its intensity and duration.
Abstract: L'arte e il Museo rappresentano due settori all'avanguardia nella ricerca e nella trasmissione della Memoria della Shoah. Esattamente queste due frontiere disciplinari si occupano fra l'altro dei molti e diversi modi in cui la Memoria stessa è vista, comunicata o percepita. Il libro, frutto di uno studio durato molti anni, accoglie contributi di specialisti fra i più accreditati nei due temi: persone, situazioni e realtà nuove e a tratti sorprendenti aiutano il lettore a comprendere meglio i volti, le sembianze della Memoria della Shoah nel mondo di oggi e di domani.
Indice
Maya Zack, Counterlight
Clara Ferranti, Per una definizione linguistica del totalitarismo del XXI secolo: “radiografia” controluce dell’epoca contemporanea
Paolo Coen, Da Richard Serra in qua. La memoria dell’Olocausto nell’arte e nel Museo, fra continuità, fratture e intersezioni
Eleonora Palmoni, Proposta per musealizzare una delle località di internamento fascista nelle Marche: la Villa Giustiniani-Bandini di Urbisaglia
Daria Brasca, “Holocaust-Era Looted Art” nel contesto italiano: le collezioni private ebraiche tra rimozioni storiche e mancata coscienza nazionale
Manfredo Coen, Il Parco del Cardeto ad Ancona
Chiara Censi, Il patrimonio ebraico di Ancona e delle Marche. La musealizzazione del Cimitero Ebraico di Ancona
Lola Kantor-Kazovsky, Post-Holocaust Reflexion in Moscow Non-conformist Art of the 1960s and Michail Grobman’s Israeli Leviathan group
Danielle Pardo Rabani, La memoria del Bene, Brindisi accoglie: proposta per il recupero e la valorizzazione della ex Stazione Sanitaria Marittima di via Mater Domini
Giorgia Calò, Rappresentare il non rappresentabile. Il volto della Shoah
Anastasia Felcher, Of Their Own Design: Curatorial Solutions to Commemorate the Shoah in Museums across Eastern Europe
Elenco delle immagini
Abstract: Law on Property Restitution and Compensation stipulates that its provisions apply to confiscated property provided that the owner of that property is rehabilitated. In this case, the request for the return of property must be accompanied by a court decision on the rehabilitation or proof that the application for rehabilitation was submitted. The first Serbian Rehabilitation Act was passed in 2006. According to the Law on Rehabilitation, from December 2011, persons who have been deprived of a right (to life, to freedom of movement, to property...) because of political activism, ideological or religious beliefs and national origin before the entry into force of this Act can be rehabilitated. However, the question is how the provisions of this law are applied to the victims of the Holocaust and other victims of Nazi terror. Does this law take into account the victims, does it provide any satisfaction to the victims of the Holocaust and other victims of the occupiers and various quisling formations? What consequences the
implementation of the Rehabilitation Act may have on the property rights of persons who, in the course of World War II, acquired property that was previously forcibly taken away (factual and legal violence) from their
rightful owners? What consequences the implementation of this law may have on the rights of the victims of the Holocaust and their heirs and what consequences the implementation of this law may have on the rights of the
victims of the Holocaust who have no heirs?
Abstract: Following on the overview presented at the first annual Holocaust and Restitution Conference concerning what is known about the expropriation of cultural property in Serbia during World War II and where that cultural property is presently located, ways in which restitution of art, Judaica, and other cultural property might best be implemented are discussed.
Serbia is encouraged to do historical research on the history of cultural plunder during World War II and on what was restituted to Serbia and within Serbia after the War, and to create a listing or database on the internet of what was taken in Serbia, noting what was subsequently returned and what is still missing. An entity should be responsible for provenance research in the country, either one that actually does the research as in Austria or one that oversees the research carried out by museums, libraries, and archives as in the Netherlands. Information should be made public over the internet of the results of such provenance research. A separate entity, as neutral and independent as possible, should be responsible for restitution decisions based on the provenance research. Serbia should pass legislation covering the return of private movable cultural property that is applicable to both Serbian and foreign citizens. Preferably there should be no deadline for claims for cultural property, whether individual or communal, since such cultural property is often not immediately identifiable. A non-bureaucratic process for filing claims should be established. Cultural property for which original owners and heirs are not identified (heirless property) should be listed on an internet site so that potential claimants can come forward. Such
items should not necessarily move from their current location, but their provenance history should be publicly noted.
Abstract: Following on the overview presented at the first annual Holocaust and Restitution Conference concerning what is known about the expropriation of cultural property in Serbia during World War II and where that cultural property is presently located, ways in which restitution of art, Judaica, and other cultural property might best be implemented are discussed.
Serbia is encouraged to do historical research on the history of cultural plunder during World War II and on what was restituted to Serbia and within Serbia after the War, and to create a listing or database on the internet of what was taken in Serbia, noting what was subsequently returned and what is still missing. An entity should be responsible for provenance research in the country, either one that actually does the research as in Austria or one that oversees the research carried out by museums, libraries, and archives as in the Netherlands. Information should be made public over the internet of the results of such provenance research. A separate entity, as neutral and independent as possible, should be responsible for restitution decisions based on the provenance research. Serbia should pass legislation covering the return of private movable cultural property that is applicable to both Serbian and foreign citizens. Preferably there should be no deadline for claims for cultural property, whether individual or communal, since such cultural property is often not immediately identifi able. A non-bureaucratic process for filing claims should be established. Cultural property for which original owners and heirs are not identifi ed (heirless property) should be listed on an internet site so that potential claimants can come forward. Such
items should not necessarily move from their current location, but their provenance history should be publicly noted.
Abstract: This paper discusses the restitution of Jewish property in Croatia from 1990 on, having in mind that the question has not yet been resolved and that progress towards this has been very slow due to sketchy laws which are being implemented only partially. Th is issue usually receives more attention only when a Croatian government fi gure meets someone from Israel or the US Administration. Current legislature enables restitution only of Jewish property seized after 1945, while property seized during the NDH (Independent state of Croatia) remained intact, " protected " by laws passed at the time of Yugoslavia. Current restitution of seized property is performed according to the Law on Restitution/Compensation of Property Taken during the Time of the Yugoslav Communist Government, which came into eff ect in 1997, so the right to restitution or compensation applies only to Croatian citizens of the fi rst order of succession. Th at property seized between 1941 and 1945 is not restituted is still an accepted practice, despite the fact that it is in this period when the majority of Jewish property was seized. Th e right to restitution is still limited to the fi rst order of succession, while the deadline for applications remains too short. Towards the end of mandate of the Jadranka Kosor government there were some attempts to change that and enact a new law, but the proposal for that law got stuck somewhere in parliamentary procedure so it is not yet clear when it will be passed. Until now, judging by unoffi cial data, less than 30 percent of Jewish families of those who perished in the NDH have achieved the return of immobile property, so the government of Prime Minister Zoran Milanović donated a building in the centre of Zagreb to the Jewish municipality, as a kind of compensation for property seized during Ustasha regime.
Abstract: Once one of the most numerous and prosperous minorities in Yugoslavia, the number of Jews declined from over 80,000 to 15,000 in the years aer WW2. is number further decreased due to migration to Israel in the first post-war years, and further impoverishment took place because of confiscation and restitution of the majority of private and communal Jewish property, and enforced renouncing of Yugoslav citizenship. e first multi-party elections in Yugoslavia brought to power nationalist elements in all republics, which was followed by civil war, and the breaking of socialist Yugoslavia. Jews of Yugoslavia found themselves on different warring sides. Fragmentation on all confronted sides made the Jewish community even more vulnerable. A huge majority of former Warsaw Pact members aer the Berlin wall fell passed laws for restitution of property taken by the state in post WW2 period. Jews of Yugoslavia, in several new states, had promises from state offi cials that their property would be restituted and errors made half a century ago would be rectified. e only case where such a promise came true was Serbia. In 2011 Serbia passed General Restitution Law concerning individuals, therefore also Jews. In 2006 Serbia passed Law on property of the religious communities that also included Jewish community and that helped restitution of the Jewish communal property. e state of Serbia is the only state in the region that passed the Jewish Lex Specialis that concerns on Jewish property with no successor but also unclaimed Jewish property in February 2016. Croatia passed a General Restitution Law in 1996, and amended it in 2002, but it only affects property nationalized aer May 1945. at Law is limited to direct successors who are Croatian citizens or citizens of countries which have bilateral agreements with Croatia. Due to very high taxes, in some cases reaching 25% of property value, a lot of Jewish requests remained unsolved. Bosnia and Herzegovina is one of the rare European countries that did not pass such a law. Moreover, the BIH constitution declares three constituent nations: Serbs, Croats and Bosnians, while others as minorities cannot be nominated for state positions, according to chapters IV and V of the BIH constitution (Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina). is paper aims to give insight into the economic power of Jews just before the breakdown of Yugoslavia, and the current economic situation of Jewish communities in Serbia, Croatia and BIH, with a special emphasis on their economic, legal and social position in the last two decades. is restitution issue is very important for it shows how much goodwill states have for helping their local Jewish communities. e research material is obtained from local Jewish communities, periodicals, reports, interviews, conferences, scientific journals and statistical data of all three states and various Jewish organization. Facing the past, admitting and rectifying remain open issues in those countries, and they are excellent indicators of the progress achieved in the last 25 years.
Abstract: After the dissolution of Yugoslavia, the Jewish community within Yugoslavia was also split up, and now various Jewish communities exist in the seven post-Yugoslav countries. Although all of these communities are relatively small, their size, influence, and activity vary. The political and legal status of Jewish communities, normatively speaking, differs across the former Yugoslav republics. Sometimes Jews or Jewish communities are mentioned in constitutions, signed agreements with governments, or are recognized in laws that regulate religious communities. Despite normative differences, they share most of the same problems – a slow process of return of property, diminishing numbers due to emigration and assimilation, and, although on a much lower scale than in many other countries, creeping anti-Semitism. They also share the same opportunities – a push for more minority rights as part of ‘Europeanization’ and the perception of Jewish communities as a link to influential investors and politicians from the Jewish diaspora and Israel.
Abstract: Deutschland und Israel, wie geht das zusammen? Immer wieder ist dies seit 1965, seit der Aufnahme diplomatischer Beziehungen zwischen dem "Land der Dichter und Henker" und dem kleinen, selbstbewussten jüdischen Staat im Nahen Osten, gefragt worden. Es geht erstaunlich gut, bei aller Last der Vergangenheit.
16 deutsche und israelische Autoren geben Auskunft, wie aus zähen Annäherungsprozessen, mutigen Versöhnungsprojekten, pragmatischen Wirtschaftsvereinbarungen und spektakulären Geheimdienstkooperationen gegenseitiges Vertrauen erwuchs.
Israel und Deutschland sind heute wichtige Partner, auf nahezu allen Gebieten, selbst wenn unbewältigter Antisemitismus und ein verhärteter israelisch-palästinensischer Dauerkonflikt das Miteinander immer wieder verunsichern. Auch diese Probleme spart der Band nicht aus.
Abstract: The robbery and restitution of Jewish property are two inextricably linked social processes. It is not possible to understand the lawsuits and international agreements on the restoration of Jewish property of the late 1990s without examining what was robbed and by whom. In this volume distinguished historians first outline the mechanisms and scope of the European-wide program of plunder and then assess the effectiveness and historical implications of post-war restitution efforts. Everywhere the solution of legal and material problems was intertwined with changing national myths about the war and conflicting interpretations of justice. Even those countries that pursued extensive restitution programs using rigorous legal means were unable to compensate or fully comprehend the scale of Jewish loss. Especially in Eastern Europe, it was not until the collapse of communism that the concept of restoring some Jewish property rights even became a viable option. Integrating the abundance of new research on the material effects of the Holocaust and its aftermath, this comparative perspective examines the developments in Germany, Poland, Italy, France, Belgium, Hungary and the Czech Republic.
CONTENTS
List of Abbreviations
Preface
Part I: Introduction
Introduction: A History without Boundaries: The Robbery and Restitution of Jewish Property in Europe
Constantin Goschler and Philipp Ther
Part II: The Robbery of Jewish Property in Comparative Perspective
Chapter 1. The Seizure of Jewish Property in Europe: Comparative Aspects of Nazi Methods and Local Responses
Martin Dean
Chapter 2. Aryanization and Restitution in Germany
Frank Bajohr
Chapter 3. The Looting of Jewish Property in Occupied Western Europe: A Comparative Study of Belgium, France, and the Netherlands
Jean-Marc Dreyfus
Chapter 4. The Robbery of Jewish Property in Eastern Europe under German Occupation, 1939–1942
Dieter Pohl
Chapter 5. The Robbery of Jewish Property in Eastern European States Allied with Nazi Germany
Tatjana Tönsmeyer
Part III: The Restitution of Jewish Property in Comparative Perspective
Chapter 6. West Germany and the Restitution of Jewish Property in Europe
Jürgen Lillteicher
Chapter 7. Jewish Property and the Politics of Restitution in Germany after 1945
Constantin Goschler
Chapter 8. Two Approaches to Compensation in France: Restitution and Reparation
Claire Andrieu
Chapter 9. The Expropriation of Jewish Property and Restitution in Belgium
Rudi van Doorslaer
Chapter 10. Indifference and Forgetting: Italy and its Jewish Community, 1938–1970
Ilaria Pavan
Chapter 11. “Why Switzerland?” – Remarks on a Neutral’s Role in the Nazi Program of Robbery and Allied Postwar Restitution Policy
Regula Ludi
Chapter 12. The Hungarian Gold Train: Fantasies of Wealth and the Madness of Genocide
Ronald W. Zweig
Chapter 13. Reluctant Restitution: The Restitution of Jewish Property in the Bohemian Lands after the Second World War
Eduard Kubu and Jan Kuklík Jr.
Chapter 14. The Polish Debate on the Holocaust and the Restitution of Property
Dariusz Stola
Part IV: Concluding Remarks
Conclusion: Reflections on the Restitution and Compensation of Holocaust Theft: Past, Present, and Future
Gerald D. Feldman
Notes on Contributors
Select Bibliography
Index
Abstract: The Holocaust (Shoah) Immovable Property Restitution Study is the first-ever comprehensive
compilation of all significant legislation passed since 1945 by the 47 states that participated in
the 2009 Prague Holocaust Era Assets Conference and endorsed the 2009 Terezin Declaration
that came out of the Prague conference.
The Terezin Declaration (and its companion document, the 2010 Guidelines and Best Practices,
endorsed by 43 countries) focuses in substantial part on the treatment of immovable (real)
property restitution: private, communal, and heirless property. The Study examined private,
communal, and heirless property as discrete components of each country’s restitution efforts
from 1944 to 2016.
Ukraine endorsed the Terezin Declaration in 2009, but it did not endorse the 2010
Guidelines and Best Practices.
As part of the European Shoah Legacy Institute’s Immovable Property Restitution Study,
a Questionnaire covering past and present restitution regimes for private, communal and
heirless property was sent to all 47 Terezin Declaration governments in 2015. As of 13
December 2016, no response from Ukraine has been received.
Abstract: The Holocaust (Shoah) Immovable Property Restitution Study is the first-ever comprehensive
compilation of all significant legislation passed since 1945 by the 47 states that participated in
the 2009 Prague Holocaust Era Assets Conference and endorsed the 2009 Terezin Declaration
that came out of the Prague conference.
The Terezin Declaration (and its companion document, the 2010 Guidelines and Best Practices,
endorsed by 43 countries) focuses in substantial part on the treatment of immovable (real)
property restitution: private, communal, and heirless property. The Study examined private,
communal, and heirless property as discrete components of each country’s restitution efforts
from 1944 to 2016.
Russia endorsed the Terezin Declaration in 2009, but declined to endorse the 2010
Guidelines and Best Practices. In 2012, the Russian Foreign Ministry stated that “the
[Terezin] declaration does not contain principles that are essential to our country. We
consider it important to deal with these issues on the basis of post-war settlement
principles fixed in the Yalta and Potsdam conferences of the Allied powers. We would
like to emphasize that it’s necessary to regard the Holocaust era as fixed in the
declaration, which means from 1933-1945.”
As part of the European Shoah Legacy Institute’s Immovable Property Restitution Study,
a Questionnaire covering past and present restitution regimes for private, communal and
heirless property was sent to all 47 Terezin Declaration governments in 2015. As of 13
December 2016, no response from Russia has been received
Abstract: The Holocaust (Shoah) Immovable Property Restitution Study is the first-ever comprehensive
compilation of all significant legislation passed since 1945 by the 47 states that participated in
the 2009 Prague Holocaust Era Assets Conference and endorsed the 2009 Terezin Declaration
that came out of the Prague conference.
The Terezin Declaration (and its companion document, the 2010 Guidelines and Best Practices,
endorsed by 43 countries) focuses in substantial part on the treatment of immovable (real)
property restitution: private, communal, and heirless property. The Study examined private,
communal, and heirless property as discrete components of each country’s restitution efforts
from 1944 to 2016.
Poland endorsed the Terezin Declaration in 2009. In 2010, 43 of the countries that
endorsed the Terezin Declaration approved nonbinding Guidelines and Best Practices for
the Restitution and Compensation of Immovable (Real) Property Confiscated or
Otherwise Wrongfully Seized by the Nazi, Fascists and Their Collaborators during the
Holocaust (Shoah) Era between 1933-1945, Including the Period of World War II
(“Terezin Best Practices”). Poland initially agreed to the Terezin Best Practices but then
withdrew its support.
Poland is one of a handful of countries with a government office dedicated to Jewish
Diaspora and post-Holocaust issues. As of March 2016, Mr. Sebastian Rejak holds the
post of Special Envoy of the Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs for Relations with the
Jewish Diaspora.
As part of the European Shoah Legacy Institute’s Immovable Property Restitution Study,
a Questionnaire covering past and present restitution regimes for private, communal and
heirless property was sent to all 47 Terezin Declaration governments in 2015. As of 13
December 2016, no response from Poland has been received.
Abstract: The Holocaust (Shoah) Immovable Property Restitution Study is the first-ever comprehensive
compilation of all significant legislation passed since 1945 by the 47 states that participated in
the 2009 Prague Holocaust Era Assets Conference and endorsed the 2009 Terezin Declaration
that came out of the Prague conference.
The Terezin Declaration (and its companion document, the 2010 Guidelines and Best Practices,
endorsed by 43 countries) focuses in substantial part on the treatment of immovable (real)
property restitution: private, communal, and heirless property. The Study examined private,
communal, and heirless property as discrete components of each country’s restitution efforts
from 1944 to 2016.
Malta endorsed the Terezin Declaration in 2009, but did not participate in follow-up discussions
in 2010, which resulted in 43 other state parties endorsing the related Guidelines and Best
Practices.
As part of the European Shoah Legacy Institute’s Immovable Property Restitution Study, a
Questionnaire covering past and present restitution regimes for private, communal and heirless
property was sent to all 47 Terezin Declaration governments in 2015. Malta submitted a response
in September 2015.
