One of the themes that has emerged in the
recent convulsion of reparations demands is that Jewish
Holocaust victims should be compensated for all the monies
and properties lost as a result of Nazi tyranny. In a sense,
this seems only just, because if a person has their belongings
stolen they deserve to get them back. The problem with this
kind of approach is that it sets the stage for endless feuding,
revanchism, and war psychosis.
The idea that Jews should be compensated for Holocaust-era losses is
only possible if we take the Holocaust completely out of
its historical context. In fact, the Holocaust did not take
place in a vacuum, but during a world war in which not only
six million, but tens of millions of Europeans, mostly of
Central and East European background, were dehoused, deported,
plundered, and saw their assets seized if not by nationalist
governments then later by postwar communist regimes. Farther
back, many of the inhabitants of Eastern Europe suffered
through property losses and loss of life as a result of
the First World War, the Russian Revolution, and the four
year Civil War that ensued thereafter. In reality, Jewish
claims for restitution for Holocaust-era losses seem remarkably
self-centered when we remember that this was a World War-era,
a Revolution-era, a Collectivization-era, and a Communist
takeover-era as well.
If Jews should be compensated for Holocaust-era insurance policies,
is this to imply that no German, Pole, Hungarian, or Balt
ever had an insurance policy that was never redeemed? If
Jewish or other forced laborers who served the Nazi state
deserve compensation, then what about the millions of Germans
who were forced to labor for up to ten years after the war
was over? If Jews deserve recompense for property seized
by the Nazis, does that mean that they deserve equal recompense
for property seized by the numerous communist revolutions
that occurred in Eastern Europe? That would appear to be
the case, unless we argue for the Holocaust's "uniqueness"
a claim that has been dealt with by Norman Finkelstein in
his recent book,
The Holocaust Industry.
If property restitution is called for in cases where people were deprived
of their belongings on the basis of ethnic identity, it
would be hard to ignore the 14 million Germans deported
after World War Two solely on the basis of their German
ethnicity, who lost much more than even the maximum six
million Jews. Do we endorse the principle of compensation
for them as well? And who would pay? Certainly not the government
of Poland, whose entire gross national product would barely
cover some of the financial claims recently made against
Germany. And, by the way, among the Poles, who is to compensate
them for the 40% of their territory seized and kept by the
Soviet Union in 1939? Surely not the Republic of Byelorussia,
where the median income is about $5,000 per year. And the
list of grievances could be extended infinitely.
A basic historical perception of 20th Century European history is that
the World Wars, the Russian Revolution, the Holocaust, and
the governmental turmoil in East Central Europe were all
indicative of a process of social realignment and wealth
redistribution. In this context and in this overall fifty
year time frame, not six million, but more like a hundred
and sixty million individuals lost all they had, and in
the case of tens of millions, not only their belongings
but their lives as well. In this mix, to what special category
should Jewish losses be placed?
There are two ironies here. As Raul Hilberg and Norman Finkelstein
have noted, the Jewish people have been very successful
in the postwar period, certainly more successful than the
peoples of Eastern Europe who were hobbled for decades with
communist governments. In this kind of case, the demand
for recompense violates not only a simple sense of justice
but seems vindictive as well: it conjures the image of a
rich man bullying a pauper for money, because the pauper's
grandfather stole from the rich man's ancestor. This kind
of thinking, while not explicitly "collective responsibility"
is in effect to brand innocent people who are after all
just trying to get by with the Mark of Cain. The next thing
you know, an idea will develop that holds that guilt can
be transmitted across generations, a concept that is repulsive
on its face and that no Jew mindful of Jewish history could
ever endorse, even though some Jewish agencies evidently
do just that.
The second irony is that while the interests of Jews in this matter
are being addressed, such justification for reparations
is studiously ignored elsewhere. Here we don't mean merely
the equally legitimate claims of other Europeans. We have
in mind rather the situation in the United States, where
20 million African Americans had their labor exploited during
the days of slavery. If the principle of reparations is
consistently followed, they too deserve compensation. For
that matter, so do the Native Americans whose lands the
White Man stole Come to think of it, those of us descended
from the indentured laborers of the pre-Revolutionary days
should theoretically be entitled to file a class action
suit against the British Crown. It appears that some of
these Jewish agencies are blind to all this: one of them
recently announced its intention to recoup all Jewish property
lost as a result of the Russian Revolution! Of course, the
previous owners of this property will no doubt be hard to
locate, but not to worry, the agency in question will simply
accumulate the capital in an interest-bearing account and
doubtless figure out ways to spend it later.
Calls for reparations and compensation constitute a myth because the
implication is that in this way things will be put right
and justice achieved. But in Modern Europe, everyone has
a grievance. The mechanism of reparation and compensation
is only justifiable insofar as it allows for a controlled
means of redistributing wealth, a means that will avoid
the inequalities that lead to war and revolution in the
first place. But to abuse the process, such that the truly
needy or deserving are ignored, with the result that only
those with the power to extract such retribution in the
first place merely increase their wealth and power, is neither
just nor fair. It also is bound to create ideological tensions
that will serve no one's interests.
Bradley R. Smith, Publisher 