447. Plan Grabiezy Polski: Od Deklaracji Terezinskiej Do Ustawy 447
by Leszek A. Sosnowski
Reviewed by Jan Peczkis
447: The Plan to Plunder Poland: From the Terezin Declaration to Act 447, is the title of this Polish-language book, written by a Polish-American lawyer. It is the most comprehensive and detail-filled (with documentation) of any work I have seen thus far on so-called property restitution and the Holocaust Industry. In order to minimize repetition, I generally avoid dwelling on items, in this book, that are covered in the other books that I have reviewed on this subject.
Various price tags have been offered for Jewish claims against Poland–up to $350 billion dollars! (p. 254). US Ambassador to Poland Georgette Mosbacher has warned that “this problem will never go away until Poland solves it.” (p. 248). Money is not the only issue. Sosnowski considers these Jewish claims to be the greatest threat to Poland’s sovereignty since the 1939 German-Soviet conquest of Poland. (p. 307).
THE TEREZIN DECLARATION IS NOT LEGALLY BINDING–BUT IT CAN BE
The Terezin Declaration can be made to conjure up all sorts of “moral obligations” from nations. (p. 31). Author and lawyer Sosnowski points out that the Terezin Declaration partakes of so-called soft law, which can make it sometimes binding. (p. 83, 91). Of course, the Terezin Declaration is the beginning, not the end.
A MURDERER SHOULD NOT PROFIT FROM THE BELONGINGS OF THE ONES HE MURDERED
This consideration got life in the early postwar period, when Israel was seeking financial restitution from Germany, in the events that culminated in the Luxembourg Agreement. Benjamin Ferencz cited the Bible (1 Kings 21:19), wherein it says, “You shall speak to him, saying, ‘Thus says the Lord: ‘Have you murdered and also taken possession?’” (p. 266). This matter was also raised by Ben Gurion and Eli Weisel, and was thus paraphrased, “Was murder not sufficient for you? Must you also take someone else’s property?” (p. 267).
In the late 1990’s, almost forty years later, this matter was revived by Stuart Eizenstat, who brought up, and expanded on, the Jewish thinking behind the early restitution from Germany: “They believed that a nation should not retain properties which it has acquired by destroying a minority group.” (p. 269). Interestingly, Eizenstat spread the guilt from the Germans to other Europeans, and had the audacity to say that the lack of willingness of European nations to return heirless Jewish property owes to the fact that “they consider themselves victims of the Nazis, and not as perpetrators of the Holocaust.” (p. 269). So, in other words, according to Eizenstat, Jews were the only relevant victims of the Nazis–so much so that the sufferings of non-Jews are marginalized.
At the Prague Conference that led to the Terezin Declaration, Eizenstat insisted that heirless properties not escheat to the state if the original owners were Jews whose entire families were wiped out by the Nazis. Realizing that his reasoning has no basis in law, Eizenstat spoke of “various creative mechanisms” of getting around the local laws on property-ownership succession. (p. 270). Nice way to put it.
DEMONIZING POLAND IN ORDER TO EXTORT MONEY FROM HER
The objective of transforming Poland into a nation of murderers, unworthy of any kind of post-Jewish property, takes many forms, and is increasing. Let us look at some of them.
There are the perennial claims of “very few” Jews rescued by Poles, as by the Jew Pawel Spiewak. (p. 179). The POLIN Museum is equivocal about this subject: Its sign says, “Enmity, Indifference, Aid” to Jews. (p. 158). In fact, the POLIN Museum has more about the Jews in 1968 than it does about Poles rescuing Jews during WWII! (p. 161).
Jan T. Gross has gone around claiming that, during the war, Poles killed more Jews than Poles killed Germans. In doing so, he cited estimates of 25,000–30,000 Germans against 200,000–250,000 Jews. (p. 175). The latter, of course, is Jan Grabowski’s totally made-up voodoo number.
There is the so-called “Polish School of the Holocaust”, consisting of the likes of Jan Grabowski and Barbara Engelking. It goes around casting aspersions on Poland. (p. 50).
Israeli politician Yair Lapid has really turned on the Polonophobia: He was calling Poles murderers that want to hang on to the property of murdered Jews (pp. 157-158), and otherwise accusing Poles of trying to suppress their “role in the Holocaust”. (p. 245). Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz has echoed this line (pp. 173-174), and has repeated the Jedwabne accusation.
DO JEWS NOW HAVE RETROACTIVELY-ACTING TRIBAL RIGHTS?
Famous Jewish scientist Chaim A. Weizmann, first “discovered” the tribal basis for Jews claiming ownership of heirless properties. He declared that properties that are heirless as the result of a crime are in no sense BONA VACANTIA (abandoned), and that such Jewish properties belong, in a tribal sense, to all Jews. (pp. 275-276).
More recently, other groups have argued for Jewish tribal rights (p. 32), including the WJRO (pp. 272-273). The WJRO has put pressure on Poland (p. 115) and called for the “de-nationalization” of State-owned Jewish heirless properties. (p. 234, 277).
Nick Dean had argued that, since 90% of Poland’s Jews had been murdered by “the Nazis” (who?), it is meaningless to act in accordance with “normal matters” and to speak of a lack of heirs to properties. (p. 302). Is that so?
WHY HEIRLESS JEWISH PROPERTIES WERE LEGALLY ACQUIRED BY POLAND
The Jewish arguments do not have a single legal leg to stand on. (pp. 104-105). Author and lawyer Sosnowski addresses the Jewish arguments, and clarifies some differences between American and Polish law when it comes to heirless properties. In American law, for example, an escheatment to the state can be reversed if the original owner is found.
In Polish law, the heirless properties passed to the state because it firmly established that there is no possibility of the owner being located. (p. 304). It was no lighthearted move.
In addition, Jewish claims of tribal ownership have no basis whatsoever in any kind of legal norms. (p. 304). Likewise, Jewish claims that the “extraordinary” nature of the Holocaust (p. 110) forces the “de-nationalization” of State-acquired heirless Jewish properties, have no basis in law. Finally, the “extraordinary” nature of the Holocaust, and the shortage of heirs caused by the 90% murdered-Jews rate, are all the consequences of acts by Germany, not Poland. (p. 304). So, if anything, Germany, and not Poland, assumes responsibility.
“MORAL OBLIGATION” AND OTHER JUDEOCENTRIC ABSTRACTIONS
Because Jewish demands have no legal basis, Jews often speak of Poles having a “moral duty” (p. 78) to do such-and-such. Evidently, paying off the extortionists of the Holocaust Industry is one such contrived “moral duty” for Poles.
A GOY SHALL NOT ACQUIRE THE PROPERTY OF A JEW
There may be a deeper issue behind Jewish demands for “property restitution”“. Consider Numbers 36:7, which says, “So no inheritance of the sons of Israel will be transferred from tribe to tribe, for the sons of Israel shall each retain possession of the inheritance of the tribe of his fathers.” (p. 268). This can be taken as a command ensuring that Jewish property does not go to a gentile.
COLLECTIVE GUILT DOUBLE STANDARD
Johnny Daniels (pp. 182-183) was asked if it was all right that Poles collectively get blamed for the acts of some Poles, while Jews do not accept any kind of collective responsibility for the acts of some Jews. He answered, “It may not be fair, but that’s the way it is”.