Sweden

2019 ◽  
pp. 435-440
Author(s):  
Michael J. Bazyler ◽  
Kathryn Lee Boyd ◽  
Kristen L. Nelson ◽  
Rajika L. Shah
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Nazi Germany ◽  
Diplomatic Relations ◽  
World War ◽  
Policy Attitudes ◽  
Immigrant Policy ◽  
Economic Well Being

Sweden maintained a policy of uneven neutrality throughout World War II. While the Swedish government initially maintained a strict anti-immigrant policy, attitudes changed once World War II began. When Swedish authorities learned in 1942 that the Germans sought to deport Jews from Denmark and Norway, they aided in the rescue of thousands of Jews from the two neighboring countries. Throughout the war, Sweden maintained diplomatic relations with Nazi Germany. The Nazis sought to have Aryanization policy carried out in Sweden with respect to German-controlled companies operating in Sweden and also for Swedish companies with links to Germany. In the end, however, efforts to Aryanize property in Sweden were not very effective and did not have a major impact on the economic well-being of Swedish Jews. Sweden endorsed the Terezin Declaration in 2009 and the Guidelines and Best Practices in 2010.

France

2019 ◽  
pp. 137-150
Author(s):  
Michael J. Bazyler ◽  
Kathryn Lee Boyd ◽  
Kristen L. Nelson ◽  
Rajika L. Shah
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
Jewish Population ◽  
Nazi Germany ◽  
World War ◽  
Vichy France ◽  
Two Phases

Germany invaded France in 1940. A month later the countries entered into an agreement, by which 80 percent of France was occupied by Nazi Germany. Competing property expropriation laws were enacted in both Occupied and Unoccupied (Vichy) France. More than 20 percent of France’s Jewish population was killed during World War II. Restitution and reparations measures—particularly with respect to private and heirless property—took place in two phases. The first occurred in the immediate postwar years and ended around 1954, and the second commenced in the late 1990s and early 2000s and is ongoing. In the late 1990s, a government commission (Matteoli Commission) was established to examine the conditions under which property was confiscated by the occupying or Vichy regimes. A compensation commission (Drai Commission) was subsequently established to provide payment to those not previously compensated for damages resulting from legislation passed either by the occupying or Vichy regimes. France endorsed the Terezin Declaration in 2009 and the Guidelines and Best Practices in 2010.

Albania

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Michael J. Bazyler ◽  
Kathryn Lee Boyd ◽  
Kristen L. Nelson ◽  
Rajika L. Shah
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
Jewish Population ◽  
Nazi Germany ◽  
Final Solution ◽  
World War

Albania was occupied by Fascist Italy and then Nazi Germany during World War II. Albania’s occupation experience was unique among all Axis-occupied countries. Despite Nazi Germany’s attempt to carry out the genocide of the Jews (the so-called Final Solution), Albanians resisted. Albania was the only Nazi-occupied country where the Jewish population increased after the war. Post-Communist Albania has not enacted any laws for restitution of Holocaust-era confiscated immovable property. Post-Communist restitution laws dealing with return or compensation for property nationalized during the Communist period apply equally to all citizens. Albania endorsed the Terezin Declaration in 2009 and the Guidelines and Best Practices in 2010.

Finland

2019 ◽  
pp. 133-136
Author(s):  
Michael J. Bazyler ◽  
Kathryn Lee Boyd ◽  
Kristen L. Nelson ◽  
Rajika L. Shah
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
Nazi Germany ◽  
World War ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Anti Jewish ◽  
Property Restitution

Between 1939 and 1944, Finland fought two separate wars against the Soviet Union. In 1941, Finland entered World War II aligned with Nazi Germany in its fight against the Soviet Union. Finland was never conquered or occupied by Germany, nor were any anti-Jewish laws passed in the country. No immovable property—private, communal, or heirless—was taken from Jews or other targeted groups in Finland during the war. As a result, no immovable property restitution laws were required. Finland endorsed the Terezin Declaration in 2009 and the Guidelines and Best Practices in 2010.

Poland's Christian Minorities 1919–1939

1985 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 209-246
Author(s):  
Edward D. Wynot
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Political Life ◽  
World War ◽  
National Life ◽  
The Government ◽  
Polish Government ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Economic Well Being

The multi-national composition of the interwar Polish state was one of its most serious domestic problems. The established supremacy of the Poles in all phases of national life provoked bitter resentment from most of the country's non-Polish inhabitants, who compromised over one-third of its total population. When the Polish government consistently obstructed the attempts of these ethno-religious minorities to preserve and develop their cultural identities, assure their economic well-being, and participate fully in political life, the affected groups responded with a resistance to state authority that intensified with the passing of the two decades of Polish independence. The relationship of the government to a substantial proportion of its citizens had so deteriorated that, on the eve of World War II, a virtual condition of “undeclared warfare” existed betwen the Polish state and the leading minorities. Consequently, Warsaw could not count on any meaningful support from the Ukrainians, Belorussians, or Germans residing within its borders when the Nazi attack fell on September 1, 1939, and the Soviet assault followed on September 17. Unfortunately for these three peoples, the war brought them monumental suffering and an even crueler fate than they had endured under the Polish Republic.

Switzerland

2019 ◽  
pp. 441-446
Author(s):  
Michael J. Bazyler ◽  
Kathryn Lee Boyd ◽  
Kristen L. Nelson ◽  
Rajika L. Shah
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
Class Action ◽  
Complete Picture ◽  
Nazi Germany ◽  
World War ◽  
Jewish Refugees ◽  
Nazi Persecution ◽  
Nazi Era ◽  
Federal Judge

Switzerland remained neutral during World War II and was never invaded by Nazi Germany like its neighbors. Switzerland’s narrative as a being haven to Jewish refugees during the war and a bulwark against Nazism was discredited in the the late 1990s by two Swiss studies that investigated how Switzerland benefited from trading with Nazi Germany and other acts. These produced a more complete picture of Switzerland’s dealings with Nazi Germany, including the identification of accounts in Swiss banks of victims of Nazi persecution that had lain dormant since World War II. In 1998, Swiss banks Credit Suisse and UBS settled class action litigation in U.S. courts. In exchange for total release from all future claims arising from the Nazi era, the Swiss banks paid into a class action fund administered by U.S. federal judge Edward Korman USD 1.25 billion, to be distributed to heirs of Jewish account holders and other claimants. No Jewish immovable property was confiscated during World War II. Switzerland endorsed the Terezin Declaration in 2009 and the Guidelines and Best Practices in 2010.

Serbia

2019 ◽  
pp. 385-400
Author(s):  
Michael J. Bazyler ◽  
Kathryn Lee Boyd ◽  
Kristen L. Nelson ◽  
Rajika L. Shah
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
Jewish Community ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Nazi Germany ◽  
Property Law ◽  
World War ◽  
Communal Property ◽  
Second Wave ◽  
Property Restitution

Yugoslavia (which included present-day Serbia) was invaded by the Axis powers in 1941. Nazi Germany established a brutal occupation. Other parts of modern-day Serbia were occupied by Hungary, Bulgaria and Italy. Roughly 85 percent of the Jews who lived in Serbia before World War II were murdered. Postwar war Yugoslavia enacted a short-lived property restitution law. As Yugoslavia fell under Communist rule, widespread nationalization resulted in a second wave of property confiscations. Restitution began in the 2000s. Serbia is the only country that has enacted private property restitution legislation since endorsing the Terezin Declaration in 2009. Serbia has also passed communal property legislation—albeit with key limitations whose effects have disproportionately negatively impacted the Jewish community. In February 2016, Serbia enacted heirless property restitution legislation and the first country to enact an heirless property law since the Terezin Declaration was drafted in 2009. Serbia endorsed the Terezin Declaration in 2009 and the Guidelines and Best Practices in 2010.

Portugal

2019 ◽  
pp. 357-358
Author(s):  
Michael J. Bazyler ◽  
Kathryn Lee Boyd ◽  
Kristen L. Nelson ◽  
Rajika L. Shah
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
Jewish Population ◽  
Nazi Germany ◽  
World War ◽  
Francisco Franco ◽  
Property Restitution

Portugal was ruled from 1932 to 1968 by dictator António Salazar, who, unlike Spain’s Francisco Franco, did not enter into an alliance with Nazi Germany. Along with European states like Switzerland and Sweden, Portugal remained neutral during World War II. As a result, Salazar’s Portugal continued to trade with both the Axis and the Allied powers. Portugal had a very small Jewish population consisting of Sephardic, Ashkenazi and former crypto Jews. Upon Hitler coming to power, some Jews found refuge in Portugal, especially in 1940 when Nazi Germany overran France. It is estimated that approximately 13,000–15,000 Jews passed through Portugal during the war under 30-day tourist visas issued to them. Some estimates place the number as high as 100,000. No immovable property—private, communal, or heirless—was taken from Jews or other targeted groups in Portugal during the war. As a result, no immovable property restitution laws were required after World War II ended. Portugal endorsed the Terezin Declaration in 2009 and the Guidelines and Best Practices in 2010.

Malta

2019 ◽  
pp. 265-266
Author(s):  
Michael J. Bazyler ◽  
Kathryn Lee Boyd ◽  
Kristen L. Nelson ◽  
Rajika L. Shah
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
Nazi Germany ◽  
World War ◽  
Jewish Refugees ◽  
Property Restitution

Malta was a British Crown colony during World War II. Prior to and during World War II, Jewish refugees fled from Continental Europe to Malta because it was the only country in Europe that did not require visas for refugees fleeing Nazi Germany. No immovable property—private, communal, or heirless—was taken from Jews or other targeted groups in Malta during the war. As a result, no immovable property restitution laws were required. Malta endorsed the Terezin Declaration in 2009 and the Guidelines and Best Practices in 2010.

Luxembourg

2019 ◽  
pp. 241-248
Author(s):  
Michael J. Bazyler ◽  
Kathryn Lee Boyd ◽  
Kristen L. Nelson ◽  
Rajika L. Shah
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
Nazi Germany ◽  
World War ◽  
The Law ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Jewish Survivors

During World War II, Luxembourg was occupied by Nazi Germany. Laws passed by the occupying administration confiscated property from Jews and other “enemies of the Reich.” Even before the war ended, the Luxembourg government-in-exile in London issued a number of decrees establishing the framework for restitution in Luxembourg. A 1950 law also provided compensation for material, political, and physical damages. However, the definition of “eligible recipients” under the law excluded Jewish survivors when they did not have Luxembourg citizenship—which was the majority of survivors. A 2001 government-sponsored Study Commission was established to examine the circumstances under which property belonging to Jews in Luxembourg was confiscated during World War II and the conditions under which restitution took place. Luxembourg endorsed the Terezin Declaration in 2009 and the Guidelines and Best Practices in 2010.

Through the prism of Spain. Socio-economic causes of different outcomes of Russian and Spanish civil wars

2017 ◽  
pp. 142-155
Author(s):  
I. Rozinskiy ◽  
N. Rozinskaya
Keyword(s):  
Civil War ◽  
World War I ◽  
Civil Wars ◽  
Spanish Civil War ◽  
Statistical Data ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Russian Civil War ◽  
World War ◽  
Common Features ◽  
Economic Well Being

The article examines the socio-economic causes of the outcome of the Spanish Civil War (1936-1936), which, as opposed to the Russian Civil War, resulted in the victory of the “Whites”. Choice of Spain as the object of comparison with Russia is justified not only by similarity of civil wars occurred in the two countries in the XX century, but also by a large number of common features in their history. Based on statistical data on the changes in economic well-being of different strata of Spanish population during several decades before the civil war, the authors formulate the hypothesis according to which the increase of real incomes of Spaniards engaged in agriculture is “responsible” for their conservative political sympathies. As a result, contrary to the situation in Russia, where the peasantry did not support the Whites, in Spain the peasants’ position predetermined the outcome of the confrontation resulting in the victory of the Spanish analogue of the Whites. According to the authors, the possibility of stable increase of Spanish peasants’ incomes was caused by the nation’s non-involvement in World War I and also by more limited, compared to Russia and some other countries, spending on creation of heavy (primarily military-related) industry in Spain.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document